I just thought I'd let you know that ChaosMaster16 has restored the content on his talk page that you deleted yesterday. [1] I warned him, [2] and deleted it again, [3] but he's restored it yet again. [4] Clearly, he doesn't want to play nicely any more. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 00:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I saw your comment here and am inclined to agree with you. I commented further at my talk. Best wishes, and thanks for the feedback. -- John ( talk) 05:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is to let you know that you didn't fully-protect the Restoring Honor rally, rather semi-protect. Letting you know so you can correct the problem. Thanks. Akerans ( talk) 17:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I just made the in-line citations to for all of my recent additions. Thanks. -- Pennsylvania Penguin ( talk) 12:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey Jayron. I just created a new help desk template, {{ Edit refs}} since I see the question it addresses come up fairly often. I wanted to let you know that I grabbed your text from the help desk from earlier today as a starting point in creating it, and so I mentioned you in the edit summary of the template's creation both because I like to give credit where credit is due, and because it was necessary for compliance with the GFDL. Of course, if it bothers you to have been mentioned in this way, I can delete and recreate. Cheers.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 23:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's all good man. Nice job on the new template, and feel free to steal anything I write. If I cared about that, I wouldn't be working on Wikipedia, now would I? Thanks for the credit, I am glad that something I said made sense enough to be stolen for this purpose. --
Jayron
32 01:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Glad to hear it and yes, it had some good language:-)-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 21:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Unblock request at User talk:Lihenri
I am much inclined to unblock this user, but since you asked a question on the user's talk page, I thought it better to consult you first. The evidence of sockpuppetry is not strong, because if the statement inserted into the article is true then it is perfectly plausible that more than one editor would come up with it, in somewhat different wording, which is what happened. Since a version of the statement has now remained in the article unchallenged (as far as I can see) for two years, I suspect that the statement is true. I agree that accepting the block for well over two years and then requesting an unblock is surprising, but not in itself an offense, and there are many user accounts which are used as sporadically as this. (We tend not to notice them, because obviously we rarely have reason to look at an an account that is not being used, but they do exist.) It also seems to me that, even if the user was using more than one account, they did not do anything seriously abusive with them, and it was a long time ago. Normally in these circumstances I would consult the blocking administrator before making a decision, but in this case the blocking admin is not currently active on Wikipedia. My opinion is that considering that, as I have said, the evidence of sockpuppetry is weak, and that no harm was done by it anyway, we should unblock. Any comment on that? JamesBWatson ( talk) 19:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please feel free. Even if there was some shenanigans, WP:SO has more than been met, as far as I can tell. I was considering unblocking him just on time served. -- Jayron 32 02:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I know very little about Grundle and am not his representative or lawyer.
Wikipedia has a lot of inconsistencies. On one hand you mention the standard offer. Yet, Fram seems to dispute this.
There is a consistency problem in Wikipedia. Some articles get deleted (or kept) yet the knee jerk reaction is "other crap exists", which is sometimes used as an excuse for inconsistency.
If you have any ideas for consistency Wikipedia-wide and not just one issue, let me know! Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 15:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- There is no consistency problem. Grundle was a consistent disruption, and he is now consistently banned. His ban is in his own hands, as it always has been. He could choose (and indeed, most importantly, could have chosen) to behave in a less disruptive manner. That he did not, and does not, only deepens the community mistrust of him, and lessens the chance of his being able to return in good standing. As far as consistency Wikipedia-wide, I don't fret myself with such things. Every issue is to be dealt with on its own merits because no two situations are identical. My suggestion is to stop looking for consistency, because all human-created institutions must be inconsistent in order to be practical and responsive. This is not an issue with Wikipedia any more than any other human endeavour. Instead of trying to find perfect sameness of response, which would require perfect sameness of situation, which does not exit, instead try to look for appropriateness of response, regardless of what responses have happened to any other situation. In other words, try to do the right thing in each situation, not the consistent thing. -- Jayron 32 15:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message. I like it when I see the right thing and the consistent thing. AFDs are sometimes an example. There are easy AFD decisions, those are not the question. But there are some that seem inconsistent and wrong. I feel bad for those who slaved to write something, only to see it wiped out. Yet some crap exists. Yet if one were to fight, one could spend 24 hours a day fighting. This is not me.
- If truly the right thing was done, it would be consistent. One example is Amanda Knox. I can see why some people think she is a delete...I am not stupid. Yet other killers who are less famous are kept. Makes no sense. Other crap exists should be changed to "other crap may exist but crap should be compared to determine the worst crap and that deleted." Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 19:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. In other words, don't worry so much about being consistent. In this case, if articles need to be deleted, but have not yet, then nominate those articles for deletion. However, don't let the existance of articles which HAVE NOT been deleted, but should have been, worry you when considering the merits of OTHER articles up for deletion. Compare each article against the standard ( WP:N, for example) and NOT other articles. If you think a different article, which exists now, is worse than one which people are arguing for deletion, then go ahead and nominate it for deletion. You must be the change you want in the world. If consistency is important to you, it does you no good to just sit around and bitch that the world isn't consistent. Complaining doesn't make the world more consistent. One of my credos is to expect the best of myself, and expect nothing of anyone else. -- Jayron 32 20:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- You may be misunderstanding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you read it carefully, it states clearly that the existence of articles which should be deleted, and may someday be deleted, is no excuse for the retention of other articles which should be deleted. -- Orange Mike | Talk 21:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Walt Disney rfpp
Hi -- in the time while you were writing your decline, I was semi-protecting the article. My thought was that the level of vandalism seemed quite high to me, so high that even with pending changes protection, the burden on the people who watch the article is unacceptable. But I'm operating in the mode of avoiding conflicts right now, and if you would prefer it, I'll revert the protection back. Sorry for the confusion -- although I don't currently see any way of avoiding this sort of thing. Looie496 ( talk) 03:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm operating under the " I don't take this stuff too personally" mode right now (actually, that is my standard mode). If you feel it needs protection, feel free to protect it. It's no skin off my back. -- Jayron 32 03:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Grundle left loads of rubbish, which you've been cleaning up, but I think this page, or at least some of it, has value for the encyclopedia: User:Grundle2600/Doughnut Days 2009
Do you mind if I undelete it and move it to my user space? Jonathunder ( talk) 06:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Jonathunder ( talk) 06:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
This turns out to be deep: when does "forever" expire? :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- The day after Armageddon. After we're all raptured into Wikipedia heaven, all of the vandals get unblocked and get to have fun screwing around with Wikipedia. -- Jayron 32 06:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Koavf. This request was initiated by Koavf, but as far as his contributions show, he didn't notify any user...so I'm notifying you because you participated in the discussion that led to the community sanction. Cheers, Ncmvocalist ( talk) 21:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems he was blocked during a clash between 2 IPs. Don't think Jamie every really got deep into what happened. My take at what happened. -- iGeM iN ix 05:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! Pkeets ( talk) 16:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you please unblock user:Sulmues
This is user: Sulmues. Ok, I understood that I should not be edit warring and I will respect the sanction, and I will not call those who disagree with me "vandals" anymore. In the meantime I have been blocked for a week and WikiProject Albania has not added one single article to its baggage as a result. I lost the password for both the Sulmues account and the email: can you please unblock me? Makaperqafe ( talk) 14:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually this is one of the several times of you being blocked and then apologize that you 'regret' on this. Can you please respect your block period at least this time? wikiproject Albania (as you say) has added some dyks while you are blocked so I don't understand why you are claiming that (you still owe an apology about this aggressive edit [ [5]] while being blocked). Alexikoua ( talk) 19:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 | ||
| Volume 3, Issue 3 • Fall 2010 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
| Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS | ||
Please note that there's a new discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure in which you may wish to comment. It is expected to close in about a week. You have received this message because you participated in a similar discussion (2009 AC2 RfC) last year. Roger talk 05:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I read your statement, and am now more confused than ever. Am I to understand Template: Merge to and Template: Merge from are no longer to be used for these articles? Are they now obsolete for all articles? For months now I've been using them for candidates who might well be notable for only one event/election, and telling other Wikipedians that's the correct way to handle these situations. Are you saying that's wrong and they should all be AfDs? I'm particularly concerned about the lack of requirement or even recommendation to notify those involved with the article in that case - or at least that's been the practice here. Also, the lack of requirement or even recommendation to keep the history easily available to 'ordinary' Wikipedians by doing a redirect to the election article without deleting it first. Please clarify. Flatterworld ( talk) 16:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, what the discussion said was that there isn't going to be a moratorium on AFD's, if they are needed, for some pages. If you don't think a page needs to be deleted, and would rather see them redirected, you are free to make an arguement on the AFD page for them. Furthermore, if you would rather handle these via a merge discussion rather than an AFD discussion, that's fine too. As long as the discussion happens somewhere, it matters little if the AFD discussion decides to merge it, or if you have a merge discussion. --
Jayron
32 03:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- To clarify even more; There is to be no special treatment. You can use the mergeto and mergefrom templates whenever you feel, in good faith, it is appropriate to do so. Another editor can nominate an article for deletion, in good faith, whenever they feel it is appropriate to do so. -- Jayron 32 03:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey, unless I am misinformed, Mike Godwin is no longer the WP counsel as of Oct. 22. The Eskimo ( talk) 20:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Talkback: ANI
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— Spike Toronto 18:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found
here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is
Sturmvogel_66 (
submissions), with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to
TonyTheTiger (
submissions), with 2260, and third to
Casliber (
submissions), with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists –
White Shadows (
submissions),
William S. Saturn (
submissions),
Staxringold (
submissions) and
ThinkBlue (
submissions). Also, congratulations to
Sasata (
submissions), who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.
Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is
Casliber (
submissions), for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is
Sturmvogel_66 (
submissions), for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is
Staxringold (
submissions), for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is
Jujutacular (
submissions), for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is
Sturmvogel_66 (
submissions), for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is
TonyTheTiger (
submissions), for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is
Candlewicke (
submissions), for nineteen articles in the news in round three.
The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! 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 03:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Provided I get my own cake. One with real icing not that cheap-out whipped cream crap. Half Shadow 03:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Do you jump out of the cake, wearing a smile and a nice shade of red lipstick? -- Jayron 32 03:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
|
The WikiCup 2010 Ribbon of Participation | |
| Awarded to Jayron32, for participation in the 2010 WikiCup. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 08:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC) |
Thank you for your answer. It was very helpful. I didnt know about magic words before:) -- DSUmanskiy ( talk) 11:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi - I just noticed that you reverted my edit, saying that it should be discussed on the talk page. It *was* mooted on the talk page, and met no opposition. The point I made there is that "glam rock" is a very lazy description of Queen, based more on how they looked than how they sound. You'll note that the reference cited is NOT primarily about Queen. Anyway, shall we take this to the "Genre" section of the Queen talk page? I'm keen to hear your thoughts. 213.107.110.183 ( talk) 21:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Chris
- Looks good. Next time use "edit summaries" which point to the talk page discussion, so that we can avoid this embarassment in the future. When you make changes and don't leave edit summaries, it is hard to know your intent. I have put your version back, it looks like a good change based on the talk page comments. --
Jayron
32 21:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Many thanks - I think you can probably tell I'm pretty new to all this! 213.107.110.183 ( talk) 21:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Chris
Thank you for taking admin action regarding the sock. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71. Please also see category, which should be deleted, per WP:BAN. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I demand you immediately reverse this fowl insult, you turkey, or I'll involve my lawyer. He's been grousing for an excuse for a lawsuit, so you'd better apologize or your goose is cooked.
Or are you too much of a chicken?
Half
Shadow 00:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey Jayron. I see you came up with a reason to block this editor. I saw your AIV note, which left me a bit flummoxed. I was entering a follow-up that read like this:
The templates that have been left very clearly indicate that the material being added is unsourced negative or controversial biographical material. With the greatest of respect, there is really no need for a personal message since I could not possibly be more clear than that. I am not that articulate. Also, the fact that all the edits have been of the same nature to the article, the subject of which resembles the editor’s userid, strongly suggests that this editor has a single purpose and that is to vandalize that page: MicheleWingnut ==> Michele Bachmann.
But then, I got the edit conflict notice, etc., and discovered that you had changed your mind! What a relief. Thanks. If it matters at all, I think it was a good decision. — Spike Toronto 06:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear Jayron32 thank you for unblocking my account. I can only assert you that I never did any vandalism agaist Wiki and I am very happy that my account works again. DidiWeidmann ( talk) 09:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Technical evidence is stale. Can you please take action regarding the block evasion, with respect to the obvious behavioral evidence? The disruption and POV-pushing by the account violating block evasion, is now ongoing across multiple pages both in article mainspace, and in portal space. Thank you for your time. -- Cirt ( talk) 17:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I was wondering if you could be so kind as to have a look at Talk:Football#RFC:_Association_football as more input is required and your as listed as being interested in sport and/or football at peer review. Gnevin ( talk) 12:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
|
Have a Pie! | |
| You are hereby awarded ONE PIE for your personable instruction of an astray new user, rather than template-bombing them off the project, as happens all too often! |
Arakunem Talk 17:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Mmmm. I love pie. Seriously, when I die I expect heaven to be wrapped in a pastry crust and topped with french vanilla ice cream. -- Jayron 32 02:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thx. I'm not into bickering. FWIW, I chimed in... I agree there's some issue with the title, but I suspect (as with all "ethnicity" articles), there'll always be someone complaining... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for coming to my defense in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You seem like a pretty nice guy after all. Your right, I am trying to improve the article. After looking at several articles outside wikipedia today, I noticed they title them Franco-American (French American) Seems fair! Nobody loses, nobody wins, and it seems to please everyone. What do you think? I had not thought of that previously. Cheers!-- Chnou ( talk) 05:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think the important thing is to not rush this and to get it right. If it takes a few weeks to generate a vigorous discussion among enough people to establish consensus, then so be it. I don't think we need to make a decision today. -- Jayron 32 05:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey Jayron, I was criticized for refactoring a response you gave at the Ref Desk. This was my edit; clearly Scray didn't think it was funny. I hope my edit summary convinces you that it was intended in the best of spirits, but I am fully aware that I shouldn't have. My apologies if it rubbed you the wrong way also. Best, Drmies ( talk) 20:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Seriously? Someone else got upset about THAT? Next time, tell them to wait for ME to get upset. I never would have, but the point is it is NOT Scray's responsibility to protect my answer. I am much more offended by his intereference than I ever would be by your correction. --
Jayron
32 02:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- I certainly did not mean to upset you Jayron, but I also wasn't defending your answer. I did not revert Drmies edit, I simply expressed my concern in a civil manner on Drmies Talk page. In fact, I don't understand why you would be offended. All the best, -- Scray ( talk) 03:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jayron. I had been watching that question to see if anyone answered it, and there you were, with a pretty authoritative sounding answer--I couldn't resist a few raunchy remarks. Also, I was watching to see how serious the folks at the RefDesk were, and I have to hand it to you all, you guys are good--straight-faced, nothing but the facts. But admit it, doing push-ups will never be the same again! Thanks again, Drmies ( talk) 03:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't a very serious issue, but nevertheless thank you for your help and the quick reply. Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 04:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Wuhwuzdat has made a very WP:Pointy deletion nomination of List of management consulting firms after two of his wholesale deletions of article content were reverted and explained here. Since you participated in the 1st AfD, I am notifying you of the 2nd AfD in the event you wish to participate. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 18:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
You wrote here So please see here. I would really like to get this resolved. Thanks. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 03:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 | Hi there! I thought you might be interested in the December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We're currently recruiting help to clear a massive backlog (22,000+ articles), and we need your help! Participants in the drive will receive barnstars for their contributions! If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks! |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 18:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC).
Jayron,
My sincerest of apologies for continuing to bug you about this problem which you replied to in the Help Desk: [6]. I replied to it, and would greatly appreciate it if you could please answer this one last question (in the help desk).
All the best of wishes.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 15:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Why did you close that discussion? It was a completely different discussion, with different questions and a different purpose. -- Kumioko ( talk) 06:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, its not. The purpose of both is to complain about someone you are in conflict with. Lets keep all of the complaints in one place. I am having a hard time jumping between both noticeboards to follow the debate. --
Jayron
32 06:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- If you bothered to read them which you obviously did not the one on the village pump is to get guidance on tagging non article items. The one on the incidents page is to clarify if and when a project has the right to tell another project they can't put their banner on their articles. Since there is no way to argue it, It obviously doesn't matter enough to you that a project is enforcing ownership over another. --
Kumioko (
talk) 06:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Don't tell me what matters to me and what doesn't. --
Jayron
32 06:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well that was a mature edit summery.:-) But your actions closing the unfinished discussion speak louder than the words anyway. I'm going to go back to my edits and stop wasting my time in pointless discussions. I would recommend in the future though you actually read the discussions before you close them. It gives editors the wrong impression. -- Kumioko ( talk) 06:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Don't tell me what matters to me and what doesn't. --
Jayron
32 06:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- If you bothered to read them which you obviously did not the one on the village pump is to get guidance on tagging non article items. The one on the incidents page is to clarify if and when a project has the right to tell another project they can't put their banner on their articles. Since there is no way to argue it, It obviously doesn't matter enough to you that a project is enforcing ownership over another. --
Kumioko (
talk) 06:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you about WP:ARBSCI, but Delicious carbuncle ( talk · contribs) has not yet been notified about the remedies from that case potentially being applied to this user, from an uninvolved admin. Perhaps you could do that? In any event, the disruptive BLP violations should be actionable by an admin, irrespective of this particular case, due to the blatant and wanton nature of the BLP violations. -- Cirt ( talk) 08:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. The BLP violation material still remains at the page for the BLP,
Jamie Sorrentini, as of the last most recent disruptive edits by
Delicious carbuncle (
talk ·
contribs). What can be done to remedy the BLP violations that remain on the page? --
Cirt (
talk) 08:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have not seen where consensus at the ANI discussion has determined that the edits in question are BLP violations. I am open to the possibility that they might be, but a very short discussion at RSN (short in terms of time and in terms of number of commenters) doesn't really establish consensus on anything yet. Lets see what the opinion is. I am of no opinion myself. --
Jayron
32 08:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- 3:1 editors at
WP:RSN say the source website fails
WP:RS. The material added is controversial and contentious in nature. This goes directly to
WP:BLP and
WP:BURDEN violation. Cannot the info be removed, until after consensus is found to purportedly support it? What about
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material??? --
Cirt (
talk) 08:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Three to one is not the ratio of editors in that discussion, it is the total number of editors who have commented. Four people does not a consensus make. I will agree that the information should be removed, per WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP but only because it is being contested in good faith, not because there exists consensus that it doesn't belong. -- Jayron 32 08:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- 3:1 editors at
WP:RSN say the source website fails
WP:RS. The material added is controversial and contentious in nature. This goes directly to
WP:BLP and
WP:BURDEN violation. Cannot the info be removed, until after consensus is found to purportedly support it? What about
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material??? --
Cirt (
talk) 08:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have not seen where consensus at the ANI discussion has determined that the edits in question are BLP violations. I am open to the possibility that they might be, but a very short discussion at RSN (short in terms of time and in terms of number of commenters) doesn't really establish consensus on anything yet. Lets see what the opinion is. I am of no opinion myself. --
Jayron
32 08:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, -- Cirt ( talk) 08:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Can you log at WP:ARBSCI that Delicious carbuncle ( talk · contribs) has been given notification about the existence of that page and its potential associated remedies? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 18:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. -- Cirt ( talk) 20:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Update: Regarding above, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Delicious_carbuncle. Thank you, -- Cirt ( talk) 04:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for providing the example; definitely confirms my position. :) - [CharlieEchoTango] 08:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Would I be violating 3rr if I restored a comment for the third time that has been removed several times with rude comments in edit summaries? access_denied ( talk) 03:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Access denied, do not restore comments that have been removed. At all. Even once. To any other users talk page. If he removed it, he read it. Period. No need to force him to maintain it. Furthermore, if he doesn't want you to comment on his talk page, please don't. Its wrong to antagonize him and bait him. Just leave well enough alone. -- Jayron 32 03:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- ( talk page stalker) The person who removed the comments from the user talk page was not the owner of the talk page. (See here.) Therefore, there is no guarantee that the user to whom the talk page belongs ever even saw the comment on his talk page. Thus, the removal is probably not within the meaning of WP:OWNTALK. Under those circumstances, would it not be acceptable and appropriate for Access Denied to restore his comments? — Spike Toronto 04:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I know TFM eventually removed them also, but that was later. The prior removal was by someone who had no right to have done so. So, let’s forget for the moment that TFM later repeated the deletion — it his talk page and he has the right to do so ( WP:OWNTALK). The question here is, when a third party removes comments that are not vandalism, should not the original poster, or for that matter any other editor coming along, restore them? Is not the deletion by the third party of comments that are not vandalism itself vandalism? I am asking this more for general interest as a sometime recent changes patroller and not because of any specific interest in the TFM imbroglio. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 04:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Speaking in the general, and without any specific application to the situation above, no third party should remove comments from a user talk page, excepting in cases of clear vandalism or harassment. The only people who have the right to do so would be either the person that left them or the person who is intended to read them. To repeat, this is speaking in the general, and in the situation immediately preceeding your question, it does not apply. -- Jayron 32 04:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and as an aside, don't use the word vandalism except in cases where someone does something like writes "Shit" 450 times on the page or slams their face into the keyboard, or writes "Jimmy is the coolest kid ever". There are lots of ways that someone could write something in Wikipedia which they should not have, and vandalism is a small subset of that. Vandalism is a loaded word at Wikipedia, and when you apply it to a longstanding editor who is doing something they believe is in good faith (even if what they are doing is disruptive) it tends to enflame rather than calm a situation. Find something else to call it if it isn't vandalism. -- Jayron 32 04:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Interestingly,
WP:VANDTYPES gives, via chart, quite a broad definition of vandalism, much broader than I would ever use. —
Spike
Toronto 05:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but WP:NOTVAND gives stuff that isn't vandalism. And regardless of what VANDTYPES says may be vandalism, in theory that's all well and good. In practice, if someone is acting in what they believe to be the best interest of the encyclopedia, regardless of how woefully wrong they are, if the intent is not to damage or degrade article content in a deliberate manner, don't call it vandalism. Call it something else. -- Jayron 32 05:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Interestingly,
WP:VANDTYPES gives, via chart, quite a broad definition of vandalism, much broader than I would ever use. —
Spike
Toronto 05:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
[8] Unacceptable; you should know better than to use an edit summary like that under the circumstances. And why did you remove talk page access? Again, that makes it difficult to communicate with TFM. Gimmetoo ( talk) 11:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, my comment in the edit summary was probably a tad incivil. I should not have done that. Regarding your second question, I removed talk page access under the advice and consent of Newyorkbrad. If TFM wants to be unblocked, he can apply at
WP:BASC. I made several, good faith attempts to unblock him, he prefered to continue trolling instead. I gave him no less than 3 opportunities to converse about conditions for an unblock. He didn't even make an attempt to discuss his block with me. --
Jayron
32 17:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- I accept that you just missed this comment. Nevertheless, I disagree with your actions. If you were offended that TFM wasn't "conversing" with you, so what? You weren't the only admin discussing with TFM. TFM was not banned, so directing him to the "ban appeals subcommittee" seems a little offputting. You haven't crossed my radar with a lot of questionable admin actions, so I'm not interested in forcing this to AC, but removing TFM's TP access could be construed as wheel warring - reinstating a reversed admin action. Now, I understand that TFM might make matters worse for himself with replies on his own TP, but we don't usually use indef admin actions to save editors from themselves. Or do we now? Gimmetoo ( talk) 18:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
User talk:217.171.129.69 is blocked, by you, for one year for vandalism. I am looking at the edit history and I don't see it. Could you, perhaps, elaborate so I can respond intelligently to the unblock request? Thanks. -- Jayron 32 05:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Continued vandalism shortly after the
previous six-month proxy block expired and a very long page of warnings seemed appropriate at the time. If you feel differently, then by all means unblock. The user can create an actual account, only anon editing is disabled.
Dreadstar
☥ 06:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- If necessary, please respond here on your talk page, I've got it watchlisted.
Dreadstar
☥ 06:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. If the IP isn't currently being used as an open proxy, its quite likely that any individuals using it today aren't the people who vandalized previously. I'll drop a note at WP:OP for them to check it out, if its not an open proxy, I think an unblock should be appropriate. What say you to that plan? -- Jayron 32 06:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- If necessary, please respond here on your talk page, I've got it watchlisted.
Dreadstar
☥ 06:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd dispute the claim of Forum-shopping, as there seems to be 100% agreement on the Deletion Review that the administrator misbehaved and acted out of process simply to delete something he personally disliked...there should also be an ANI thread so that he can be cautioned about his use of tools not being a personal fiat. LikeJudasOfOld ( talk) 11:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- The comments on Deletion Review serve that purpose quite well. There does not need to be a seperate discussion just for that. -- Jayron 32 13:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
...but it's your prerogative to get a second opinion, I suppose. It was a good block; in fact you might even want to full protect it. Half Shadow 21:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
You are right of course but let us help her out. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely help her out! That is as it should be! Please keep up the good work in improving Wikipedia, including helping people work through creating articles, especially navigating the confusing morass of Wikipedia's COI guidelines. You do awesome work! --
Jayron
32 19:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you.
Kittybrewster
☎ 19:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I tried to upload and link Allies (from Flicker) but something has gone wrong. Help!
Kittybrewster
☎ 20:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Um, I'd like to, but I think I only understood about every third word of that sentence. Please elaborate on what you are having trouble with, and I'll see what I can do to help. --
Jayron
32 20:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Do you mind reviewing this article? What is wrong with it?
Kittybrewster
☎ 15:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Do you mind reviewing this article? What is wrong with it?
Kittybrewster
☎ 15:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Um, I'd like to, but I think I only understood about every third word of that sentence. Please elaborate on what you are having trouble with, and I'll see what I can do to help. --
Jayron
32 20:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I tried to upload and link Allies (from Flicker) but something has gone wrong. Help!
Kittybrewster
☎ 20:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you.
Kittybrewster
☎ 19:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Per your notification about Scientology-related articles, I wanted to make sure that you saw this. Just to be clear, my interest is not Scientology, but ensuring a neutral point of view. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 21:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
When you said: "What kind of bullshit is this? Because someone doesn't react to an uninvited act of aggression in the way you want them to, they are somehow at fault?" I said that " I wouldn't, (...) say that the victim are at fault somehow." Not that they are at fault somehow. Regarding your indention, it seems you mean that I said so, when this is not the case. Quest09 ( talk) 01:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I am trying to find out why EpiSurveyor was removed from the list of open-source health software. I am the head of the company that makes it. I'm not an expert in Wikipedia, but I think from looking at the history that you removed it. Can you explain why, or point me to the person who did remove it if it isn't you?
The specific page I'm referring to is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open_source_healthcare_software
Thanks.
Jayron32,
Thank you so much for all your help, it is much appreciated!
What else do I need to provide for you to get this page published. In regards to verification and sources, most of it is public record and birth/residence/marital/kids stuff. His 'Author' sources I took from www.curtisjhopfenbeck.com and his books are available on www.barnesandnoble.com, amazon.com, etc. Please let me know what else I need to provide to you. His publicist was kind enough to forward me a photo as well, how do I submit that to you? When will the page be activated?
Thanks so much Jayron, I REALLY appreciate the help!
Happy Holidays,
Pete - "BuukWurm"
Buukwurm ( talk) 23:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance with the Harry M. Rubin page. It was getting pretty lonely fighting them by myself. They continue to edit with a pretty clear bias though. Any suggestions in terms of preventative action would be appreciated. ButtonwoodTree ( talk) 01:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- You can try to apply at WP:RFPP for protection, or just ask me and I can apply it. -- Jayron 32 03:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
re: [9]
Please see here.
If you don't mind I'd like to put the redirect back. Both articles are spam by the same author. 67.117.130.143 ( talk) 19:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Be my guest. --
Jayron
32 19:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks.
67.117.130.143 (
talk) 19:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've added the link the IP was mentioning (Apparently the edit filter stopped him/her) . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RabidMelon/Archive. Minima c ( talk) 22:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks.
67.117.130.143 (
talk) 19:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I just sent you an e-mail. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- I saw your reply. I'll be looking into it further. Thanks. :) ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
"Look, I have two toddlers at home that fight in a more civil manner. The whole "HE STARTED IT" motif of these threads is beginning to wear thin. It makes people lose interest in the content of these threads and instead makes us focus on the juvenile nature of the battle. If either one of you is "right" in the substance of this dispute, it is getting masked by the expression of the disput"
Jayron, that was good! (You're right too, by the way, Cirt and DC have been on just about every board fighting)
KoshVorlon
' Naluboutes Aeria Gloris 17:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Can you edit protect the page? There is a lot of chatter about him being bought out and replaced with Mike Leach, and I expect this to continue until there is an announcement next week as the AD said. Might also want to consider protecting Mike Leach (American football coach) and Maryland Terrapins football which have seen similar unconstructive additions. Strikehold ( talk) 01:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Not right now. I have not seen any reason to do so, so far we are keeping up fine with reverts and blocks. We don't protect preemptively; positive edits may yet come from IPs, and we don't want to scare off good-faith editors. I, and many others, are actively monitoring the situation. -- Jayron 32 01:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
If one wished to tag an article as " The Neutrality of the article is Disputed", as I have seen tagge donto so many articles, how does one DO it? I do not see the clear and unambiguous link to do this. Pls advise
Thnx Robert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheabernard ( talk • contribs) 04:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Again my apologies, I have searched the page and do not find a FUNCTION, Tab, Button, or control that says "Click here to dispute the Neutrality of this article", nor do I find any of the above labeled "NPOV". Please forgive my ignorance. Pls advise.
- Edit the article in question, paste the text {{NPOV}} at the top of the article. Hit save page. THEN go to the talk page by selecting the "discussion" tab. Select the "New section" button on the Talk: page, then leave an explanation as to why you left the tag in the first place. -- Jayron 32 06:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
In the Alexandra Powers article I created I found a website that says she is in Scientology. Here's the website: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/a/alexandra-powers.html Should this be used as a reference in the article? Please let me know. Neptunekh2 ( talk) 10:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on the matter. You need to ask this question at WP:RS/N. -- Jayron 32 15:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Please sign up for the tweets http://twitter.com/FluorideAction# —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.225.95.142 ( talk) 16:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please sign up for tweets on my left nut. It cares more about this than I do. --
Jayron
32 16:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
-
Bustin Jieber loves fluoride, you nasty IP. Don't you ever let me see you dissing Bustin.
Half
Shadow 17:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- They want the Cavity Creeps to win by taking away the Fluoristat. You creeps! Doc talk 18:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
-
Bustin Jieber loves fluoride, you nasty IP. Don't you ever let me see you dissing Bustin.
Half
Shadow 17:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's an actual scan from last week's paper, by the way. They really called him "Bustin Jieber" on the front page. Half Shadow 18:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| This is an important message from
WikiProject Wikify. You are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Wikify. As agreed upon by the project, all members will be required to confirm their membership by February 1, 2010. If you are still interested in assisting with the project, please add yourself to the list at this page—this will renew your membership of WikiProject Wikify. Thank you for your support, WikiProject Wikify |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 19:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC).
Can you ask this user to back off? They continue to accuse me of things and refuse to back them up, directly in violation of WP:NPA.— Dæ dαlus + Contribs 20:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I just thought I'd let you know that ChaosMaster16 has restored the content on his talk page that you deleted yesterday. [1] I warned him, [2] and deleted it again, [3] but he's restored it yet again. [4] Clearly, he doesn't want to play nicely any more. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 00:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I saw your comment here and am inclined to agree with you. I commented further at my talk. Best wishes, and thanks for the feedback. -- John ( talk) 05:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is to let you know that you didn't fully-protect the Restoring Honor rally, rather semi-protect. Letting you know so you can correct the problem. Thanks. Akerans ( talk) 17:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I just made the in-line citations to for all of my recent additions. Thanks. -- Pennsylvania Penguin ( talk) 12:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey Jayron. I just created a new help desk template, {{ Edit refs}} since I see the question it addresses come up fairly often. I wanted to let you know that I grabbed your text from the help desk from earlier today as a starting point in creating it, and so I mentioned you in the edit summary of the template's creation both because I like to give credit where credit is due, and because it was necessary for compliance with the GFDL. Of course, if it bothers you to have been mentioned in this way, I can delete and recreate. Cheers.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 23:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's all good man. Nice job on the new template, and feel free to steal anything I write. If I cared about that, I wouldn't be working on Wikipedia, now would I? Thanks for the credit, I am glad that something I said made sense enough to be stolen for this purpose. --
Jayron
32 01:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Glad to hear it and yes, it had some good language:-)-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 21:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Unblock request at User talk:Lihenri
I am much inclined to unblock this user, but since you asked a question on the user's talk page, I thought it better to consult you first. The evidence of sockpuppetry is not strong, because if the statement inserted into the article is true then it is perfectly plausible that more than one editor would come up with it, in somewhat different wording, which is what happened. Since a version of the statement has now remained in the article unchallenged (as far as I can see) for two years, I suspect that the statement is true. I agree that accepting the block for well over two years and then requesting an unblock is surprising, but not in itself an offense, and there are many user accounts which are used as sporadically as this. (We tend not to notice them, because obviously we rarely have reason to look at an an account that is not being used, but they do exist.) It also seems to me that, even if the user was using more than one account, they did not do anything seriously abusive with them, and it was a long time ago. Normally in these circumstances I would consult the blocking administrator before making a decision, but in this case the blocking admin is not currently active on Wikipedia. My opinion is that considering that, as I have said, the evidence of sockpuppetry is weak, and that no harm was done by it anyway, we should unblock. Any comment on that? JamesBWatson ( talk) 19:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please feel free. Even if there was some shenanigans, WP:SO has more than been met, as far as I can tell. I was considering unblocking him just on time served. -- Jayron 32 02:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I know very little about Grundle and am not his representative or lawyer.
Wikipedia has a lot of inconsistencies. On one hand you mention the standard offer. Yet, Fram seems to dispute this.
There is a consistency problem in Wikipedia. Some articles get deleted (or kept) yet the knee jerk reaction is "other crap exists", which is sometimes used as an excuse for inconsistency.
If you have any ideas for consistency Wikipedia-wide and not just one issue, let me know! Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 15:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- There is no consistency problem. Grundle was a consistent disruption, and he is now consistently banned. His ban is in his own hands, as it always has been. He could choose (and indeed, most importantly, could have chosen) to behave in a less disruptive manner. That he did not, and does not, only deepens the community mistrust of him, and lessens the chance of his being able to return in good standing. As far as consistency Wikipedia-wide, I don't fret myself with such things. Every issue is to be dealt with on its own merits because no two situations are identical. My suggestion is to stop looking for consistency, because all human-created institutions must be inconsistent in order to be practical and responsive. This is not an issue with Wikipedia any more than any other human endeavour. Instead of trying to find perfect sameness of response, which would require perfect sameness of situation, which does not exit, instead try to look for appropriateness of response, regardless of what responses have happened to any other situation. In other words, try to do the right thing in each situation, not the consistent thing. -- Jayron 32 15:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message. I like it when I see the right thing and the consistent thing. AFDs are sometimes an example. There are easy AFD decisions, those are not the question. But there are some that seem inconsistent and wrong. I feel bad for those who slaved to write something, only to see it wiped out. Yet some crap exists. Yet if one were to fight, one could spend 24 hours a day fighting. This is not me.
- If truly the right thing was done, it would be consistent. One example is Amanda Knox. I can see why some people think she is a delete...I am not stupid. Yet other killers who are less famous are kept. Makes no sense. Other crap exists should be changed to "other crap may exist but crap should be compared to determine the worst crap and that deleted." Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 19:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. In other words, don't worry so much about being consistent. In this case, if articles need to be deleted, but have not yet, then nominate those articles for deletion. However, don't let the existance of articles which HAVE NOT been deleted, but should have been, worry you when considering the merits of OTHER articles up for deletion. Compare each article against the standard ( WP:N, for example) and NOT other articles. If you think a different article, which exists now, is worse than one which people are arguing for deletion, then go ahead and nominate it for deletion. You must be the change you want in the world. If consistency is important to you, it does you no good to just sit around and bitch that the world isn't consistent. Complaining doesn't make the world more consistent. One of my credos is to expect the best of myself, and expect nothing of anyone else. -- Jayron 32 20:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- You may be misunderstanding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you read it carefully, it states clearly that the existence of articles which should be deleted, and may someday be deleted, is no excuse for the retention of other articles which should be deleted. -- Orange Mike | Talk 21:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Walt Disney rfpp
Hi -- in the time while you were writing your decline, I was semi-protecting the article. My thought was that the level of vandalism seemed quite high to me, so high that even with pending changes protection, the burden on the people who watch the article is unacceptable. But I'm operating in the mode of avoiding conflicts right now, and if you would prefer it, I'll revert the protection back. Sorry for the confusion -- although I don't currently see any way of avoiding this sort of thing. Looie496 ( talk) 03:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm operating under the " I don't take this stuff too personally" mode right now (actually, that is my standard mode). If you feel it needs protection, feel free to protect it. It's no skin off my back. -- Jayron 32 03:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Grundle left loads of rubbish, which you've been cleaning up, but I think this page, or at least some of it, has value for the encyclopedia: User:Grundle2600/Doughnut Days 2009
Do you mind if I undelete it and move it to my user space? Jonathunder ( talk) 06:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Jonathunder ( talk) 06:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
This turns out to be deep: when does "forever" expire? :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- The day after Armageddon. After we're all raptured into Wikipedia heaven, all of the vandals get unblocked and get to have fun screwing around with Wikipedia. -- Jayron 32 06:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Koavf. This request was initiated by Koavf, but as far as his contributions show, he didn't notify any user...so I'm notifying you because you participated in the discussion that led to the community sanction. Cheers, Ncmvocalist ( talk) 21:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems he was blocked during a clash between 2 IPs. Don't think Jamie every really got deep into what happened. My take at what happened. -- iGeM iN ix 05:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! Pkeets ( talk) 16:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you please unblock user:Sulmues
This is user: Sulmues. Ok, I understood that I should not be edit warring and I will respect the sanction, and I will not call those who disagree with me "vandals" anymore. In the meantime I have been blocked for a week and WikiProject Albania has not added one single article to its baggage as a result. I lost the password for both the Sulmues account and the email: can you please unblock me? Makaperqafe ( talk) 14:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually this is one of the several times of you being blocked and then apologize that you 'regret' on this. Can you please respect your block period at least this time? wikiproject Albania (as you say) has added some dyks while you are blocked so I don't understand why you are claiming that (you still owe an apology about this aggressive edit [ [5]] while being blocked). Alexikoua ( talk) 19:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 3 • Fall 2010 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
| Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS | ||
Please note that there's a new discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure in which you may wish to comment. It is expected to close in about a week. You have received this message because you participated in a similar discussion (2009 AC2 RfC) last year. Roger talk 05:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I read your statement, and am now more confused than ever. Am I to understand Template: Merge to and Template: Merge from are no longer to be used for these articles? Are they now obsolete for all articles? For months now I've been using them for candidates who might well be notable for only one event/election, and telling other Wikipedians that's the correct way to handle these situations. Are you saying that's wrong and they should all be AfDs? I'm particularly concerned about the lack of requirement or even recommendation to notify those involved with the article in that case - or at least that's been the practice here. Also, the lack of requirement or even recommendation to keep the history easily available to 'ordinary' Wikipedians by doing a redirect to the election article without deleting it first. Please clarify. Flatterworld ( talk) 16:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, what the discussion said was that there isn't going to be a moratorium on AFD's, if they are needed, for some pages. If you don't think a page needs to be deleted, and would rather see them redirected, you are free to make an arguement on the AFD page for them. Furthermore, if you would rather handle these via a merge discussion rather than an AFD discussion, that's fine too. As long as the discussion happens somewhere, it matters little if the AFD discussion decides to merge it, or if you have a merge discussion. --
Jayron
32 03:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- To clarify even more; There is to be no special treatment. You can use the mergeto and mergefrom templates whenever you feel, in good faith, it is appropriate to do so. Another editor can nominate an article for deletion, in good faith, whenever they feel it is appropriate to do so. -- Jayron 32 03:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey, unless I am misinformed, Mike Godwin is no longer the WP counsel as of Oct. 22. The Eskimo ( talk) 20:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Talkback: ANI
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— Spike Toronto 18:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found
here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is
Sturmvogel_66 (
submissions), with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to
TonyTheTiger (
submissions), with 2260, and third to
Casliber (
submissions), with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists –
White Shadows (
submissions),
William S. Saturn (
submissions),
Staxringold (
submissions) and
ThinkBlue (
submissions). Also, congratulations to
Sasata (
submissions), who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.
Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is
Casliber (
submissions), for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is
Sturmvogel_66 (
submissions), for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is
Staxringold (
submissions), for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is
Jujutacular (
submissions), for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is
Sturmvogel_66 (
submissions), for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is
TonyTheTiger (
submissions), for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is
Candlewicke (
submissions), for nineteen articles in the news in round three.
The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! 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 03:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Provided I get my own cake. One with real icing not that cheap-out whipped cream crap. Half Shadow 03:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Do you jump out of the cake, wearing a smile and a nice shade of red lipstick? -- Jayron 32 03:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
|
|
The WikiCup 2010 Ribbon of Participation | |
| Awarded to Jayron32, for participation in the 2010 WikiCup. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 08:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC) |
Thank you for your answer. It was very helpful. I didnt know about magic words before:) -- DSUmanskiy ( talk) 11:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi - I just noticed that you reverted my edit, saying that it should be discussed on the talk page. It *was* mooted on the talk page, and met no opposition. The point I made there is that "glam rock" is a very lazy description of Queen, based more on how they looked than how they sound. You'll note that the reference cited is NOT primarily about Queen. Anyway, shall we take this to the "Genre" section of the Queen talk page? I'm keen to hear your thoughts. 213.107.110.183 ( talk) 21:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Chris
- Looks good. Next time use "edit summaries" which point to the talk page discussion, so that we can avoid this embarassment in the future. When you make changes and don't leave edit summaries, it is hard to know your intent. I have put your version back, it looks like a good change based on the talk page comments. --
Jayron
32 21:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Many thanks - I think you can probably tell I'm pretty new to all this! 213.107.110.183 ( talk) 21:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Chris
Thank you for taking admin action regarding the sock. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71. Please also see category, which should be deleted, per WP:BAN. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I demand you immediately reverse this fowl insult, you turkey, or I'll involve my lawyer. He's been grousing for an excuse for a lawsuit, so you'd better apologize or your goose is cooked.
Or are you too much of a chicken?
Half
Shadow 00:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey Jayron. I see you came up with a reason to block this editor. I saw your AIV note, which left me a bit flummoxed. I was entering a follow-up that read like this:
The templates that have been left very clearly indicate that the material being added is unsourced negative or controversial biographical material. With the greatest of respect, there is really no need for a personal message since I could not possibly be more clear than that. I am not that articulate. Also, the fact that all the edits have been of the same nature to the article, the subject of which resembles the editor’s userid, strongly suggests that this editor has a single purpose and that is to vandalize that page: MicheleWingnut ==> Michele Bachmann.
But then, I got the edit conflict notice, etc., and discovered that you had changed your mind! What a relief. Thanks. If it matters at all, I think it was a good decision. — Spike Toronto 06:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear Jayron32 thank you for unblocking my account. I can only assert you that I never did any vandalism agaist Wiki and I am very happy that my account works again. DidiWeidmann ( talk) 09:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Technical evidence is stale. Can you please take action regarding the block evasion, with respect to the obvious behavioral evidence? The disruption and POV-pushing by the account violating block evasion, is now ongoing across multiple pages both in article mainspace, and in portal space. Thank you for your time. -- Cirt ( talk) 17:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I was wondering if you could be so kind as to have a look at Talk:Football#RFC:_Association_football as more input is required and your as listed as being interested in sport and/or football at peer review. Gnevin ( talk) 12:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
|
|
Have a Pie! | |
| You are hereby awarded ONE PIE for your personable instruction of an astray new user, rather than template-bombing them off the project, as happens all too often! |
Arakunem Talk 17:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Mmmm. I love pie. Seriously, when I die I expect heaven to be wrapped in a pastry crust and topped with french vanilla ice cream. -- Jayron 32 02:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thx. I'm not into bickering. FWIW, I chimed in... I agree there's some issue with the title, but I suspect (as with all "ethnicity" articles), there'll always be someone complaining... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for coming to my defense in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You seem like a pretty nice guy after all. Your right, I am trying to improve the article. After looking at several articles outside wikipedia today, I noticed they title them Franco-American (French American) Seems fair! Nobody loses, nobody wins, and it seems to please everyone. What do you think? I had not thought of that previously. Cheers!-- Chnou ( talk) 05:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think the important thing is to not rush this and to get it right. If it takes a few weeks to generate a vigorous discussion among enough people to establish consensus, then so be it. I don't think we need to make a decision today. -- Jayron 32 05:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey Jayron, I was criticized for refactoring a response you gave at the Ref Desk. This was my edit; clearly Scray didn't think it was funny. I hope my edit summary convinces you that it was intended in the best of spirits, but I am fully aware that I shouldn't have. My apologies if it rubbed you the wrong way also. Best, Drmies ( talk) 20:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Seriously? Someone else got upset about THAT? Next time, tell them to wait for ME to get upset. I never would have, but the point is it is NOT Scray's responsibility to protect my answer. I am much more offended by his intereference than I ever would be by your correction. --
Jayron
32 02:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- I certainly did not mean to upset you Jayron, but I also wasn't defending your answer. I did not revert Drmies edit, I simply expressed my concern in a civil manner on Drmies Talk page. In fact, I don't understand why you would be offended. All the best, -- Scray ( talk) 03:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jayron. I had been watching that question to see if anyone answered it, and there you were, with a pretty authoritative sounding answer--I couldn't resist a few raunchy remarks. Also, I was watching to see how serious the folks at the RefDesk were, and I have to hand it to you all, you guys are good--straight-faced, nothing but the facts. But admit it, doing push-ups will never be the same again! Thanks again, Drmies ( talk) 03:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't a very serious issue, but nevertheless thank you for your help and the quick reply. Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 04:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Wuhwuzdat has made a very WP:Pointy deletion nomination of List of management consulting firms after two of his wholesale deletions of article content were reverted and explained here. Since you participated in the 1st AfD, I am notifying you of the 2nd AfD in the event you wish to participate. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 18:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
You wrote here So please see here. I would really like to get this resolved. Thanks. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 03:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
|
| Hi there! I thought you might be interested in the December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We're currently recruiting help to clear a massive backlog (22,000+ articles), and we need your help! Participants in the drive will receive barnstars for their contributions! If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks! |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 18:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC).
Jayron,
My sincerest of apologies for continuing to bug you about this problem which you replied to in the Help Desk: [6]. I replied to it, and would greatly appreciate it if you could please answer this one last question (in the help desk).
All the best of wishes.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 15:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Why did you close that discussion? It was a completely different discussion, with different questions and a different purpose. -- Kumioko ( talk) 06:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, its not. The purpose of both is to complain about someone you are in conflict with. Lets keep all of the complaints in one place. I am having a hard time jumping between both noticeboards to follow the debate. --
Jayron
32 06:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- If you bothered to read them which you obviously did not the one on the village pump is to get guidance on tagging non article items. The one on the incidents page is to clarify if and when a project has the right to tell another project they can't put their banner on their articles. Since there is no way to argue it, It obviously doesn't matter enough to you that a project is enforcing ownership over another. --
Kumioko (
talk) 06:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Don't tell me what matters to me and what doesn't. --
Jayron
32 06:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well that was a mature edit summery.:-) But your actions closing the unfinished discussion speak louder than the words anyway. I'm going to go back to my edits and stop wasting my time in pointless discussions. I would recommend in the future though you actually read the discussions before you close them. It gives editors the wrong impression. -- Kumioko ( talk) 06:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Don't tell me what matters to me and what doesn't. --
Jayron
32 06:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- If you bothered to read them which you obviously did not the one on the village pump is to get guidance on tagging non article items. The one on the incidents page is to clarify if and when a project has the right to tell another project they can't put their banner on their articles. Since there is no way to argue it, It obviously doesn't matter enough to you that a project is enforcing ownership over another. --
Kumioko (
talk) 06:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you about WP:ARBSCI, but Delicious carbuncle ( talk · contribs) has not yet been notified about the remedies from that case potentially being applied to this user, from an uninvolved admin. Perhaps you could do that? In any event, the disruptive BLP violations should be actionable by an admin, irrespective of this particular case, due to the blatant and wanton nature of the BLP violations. -- Cirt ( talk) 08:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. The BLP violation material still remains at the page for the BLP,
Jamie Sorrentini, as of the last most recent disruptive edits by
Delicious carbuncle (
talk ·
contribs). What can be done to remedy the BLP violations that remain on the page? --
Cirt (
talk) 08:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have not seen where consensus at the ANI discussion has determined that the edits in question are BLP violations. I am open to the possibility that they might be, but a very short discussion at RSN (short in terms of time and in terms of number of commenters) doesn't really establish consensus on anything yet. Lets see what the opinion is. I am of no opinion myself. --
Jayron
32 08:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- 3:1 editors at
WP:RSN say the source website fails
WP:RS. The material added is controversial and contentious in nature. This goes directly to
WP:BLP and
WP:BURDEN violation. Cannot the info be removed, until after consensus is found to purportedly support it? What about
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material??? --
Cirt (
talk) 08:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Three to one is not the ratio of editors in that discussion, it is the total number of editors who have commented. Four people does not a consensus make. I will agree that the information should be removed, per WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP but only because it is being contested in good faith, not because there exists consensus that it doesn't belong. -- Jayron 32 08:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- 3:1 editors at
WP:RSN say the source website fails
WP:RS. The material added is controversial and contentious in nature. This goes directly to
WP:BLP and
WP:BURDEN violation. Cannot the info be removed, until after consensus is found to purportedly support it? What about
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material??? --
Cirt (
talk) 08:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have not seen where consensus at the ANI discussion has determined that the edits in question are BLP violations. I am open to the possibility that they might be, but a very short discussion at RSN (short in terms of time and in terms of number of commenters) doesn't really establish consensus on anything yet. Lets see what the opinion is. I am of no opinion myself. --
Jayron
32 08:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, -- Cirt ( talk) 08:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Can you log at WP:ARBSCI that Delicious carbuncle ( talk · contribs) has been given notification about the existence of that page and its potential associated remedies? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 18:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. -- Cirt ( talk) 20:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Update: Regarding above, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Delicious_carbuncle. Thank you, -- Cirt ( talk) 04:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for providing the example; definitely confirms my position. :) - [CharlieEchoTango] 08:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Would I be violating 3rr if I restored a comment for the third time that has been removed several times with rude comments in edit summaries? access_denied ( talk) 03:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Access denied, do not restore comments that have been removed. At all. Even once. To any other users talk page. If he removed it, he read it. Period. No need to force him to maintain it. Furthermore, if he doesn't want you to comment on his talk page, please don't. Its wrong to antagonize him and bait him. Just leave well enough alone. -- Jayron 32 03:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- ( talk page stalker) The person who removed the comments from the user talk page was not the owner of the talk page. (See here.) Therefore, there is no guarantee that the user to whom the talk page belongs ever even saw the comment on his talk page. Thus, the removal is probably not within the meaning of WP:OWNTALK. Under those circumstances, would it not be acceptable and appropriate for Access Denied to restore his comments? — Spike Toronto 04:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I know TFM eventually removed them also, but that was later. The prior removal was by someone who had no right to have done so. So, let’s forget for the moment that TFM later repeated the deletion — it his talk page and he has the right to do so ( WP:OWNTALK). The question here is, when a third party removes comments that are not vandalism, should not the original poster, or for that matter any other editor coming along, restore them? Is not the deletion by the third party of comments that are not vandalism itself vandalism? I am asking this more for general interest as a sometime recent changes patroller and not because of any specific interest in the TFM imbroglio. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 04:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Speaking in the general, and without any specific application to the situation above, no third party should remove comments from a user talk page, excepting in cases of clear vandalism or harassment. The only people who have the right to do so would be either the person that left them or the person who is intended to read them. To repeat, this is speaking in the general, and in the situation immediately preceeding your question, it does not apply. -- Jayron 32 04:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and as an aside, don't use the word vandalism except in cases where someone does something like writes "Shit" 450 times on the page or slams their face into the keyboard, or writes "Jimmy is the coolest kid ever". There are lots of ways that someone could write something in Wikipedia which they should not have, and vandalism is a small subset of that. Vandalism is a loaded word at Wikipedia, and when you apply it to a longstanding editor who is doing something they believe is in good faith (even if what they are doing is disruptive) it tends to enflame rather than calm a situation. Find something else to call it if it isn't vandalism. -- Jayron 32 04:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Interestingly,
WP:VANDTYPES gives, via chart, quite a broad definition of vandalism, much broader than I would ever use. —
Spike
Toronto 05:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but WP:NOTVAND gives stuff that isn't vandalism. And regardless of what VANDTYPES says may be vandalism, in theory that's all well and good. In practice, if someone is acting in what they believe to be the best interest of the encyclopedia, regardless of how woefully wrong they are, if the intent is not to damage or degrade article content in a deliberate manner, don't call it vandalism. Call it something else. -- Jayron 32 05:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Interestingly,
WP:VANDTYPES gives, via chart, quite a broad definition of vandalism, much broader than I would ever use. —
Spike
Toronto 05:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
[8] Unacceptable; you should know better than to use an edit summary like that under the circumstances. And why did you remove talk page access? Again, that makes it difficult to communicate with TFM. Gimmetoo ( talk) 11:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, my comment in the edit summary was probably a tad incivil. I should not have done that. Regarding your second question, I removed talk page access under the advice and consent of Newyorkbrad. If TFM wants to be unblocked, he can apply at
WP:BASC. I made several, good faith attempts to unblock him, he prefered to continue trolling instead. I gave him no less than 3 opportunities to converse about conditions for an unblock. He didn't even make an attempt to discuss his block with me. --
Jayron
32 17:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- I accept that you just missed this comment. Nevertheless, I disagree with your actions. If you were offended that TFM wasn't "conversing" with you, so what? You weren't the only admin discussing with TFM. TFM was not banned, so directing him to the "ban appeals subcommittee" seems a little offputting. You haven't crossed my radar with a lot of questionable admin actions, so I'm not interested in forcing this to AC, but removing TFM's TP access could be construed as wheel warring - reinstating a reversed admin action. Now, I understand that TFM might make matters worse for himself with replies on his own TP, but we don't usually use indef admin actions to save editors from themselves. Or do we now? Gimmetoo ( talk) 18:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
User talk:217.171.129.69 is blocked, by you, for one year for vandalism. I am looking at the edit history and I don't see it. Could you, perhaps, elaborate so I can respond intelligently to the unblock request? Thanks. -- Jayron 32 05:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Continued vandalism shortly after the
previous six-month proxy block expired and a very long page of warnings seemed appropriate at the time. If you feel differently, then by all means unblock. The user can create an actual account, only anon editing is disabled.
Dreadstar
☥ 06:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- If necessary, please respond here on your talk page, I've got it watchlisted.
Dreadstar
☥ 06:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. If the IP isn't currently being used as an open proxy, its quite likely that any individuals using it today aren't the people who vandalized previously. I'll drop a note at WP:OP for them to check it out, if its not an open proxy, I think an unblock should be appropriate. What say you to that plan? -- Jayron 32 06:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- If necessary, please respond here on your talk page, I've got it watchlisted.
Dreadstar
☥ 06:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd dispute the claim of Forum-shopping, as there seems to be 100% agreement on the Deletion Review that the administrator misbehaved and acted out of process simply to delete something he personally disliked...there should also be an ANI thread so that he can be cautioned about his use of tools not being a personal fiat. LikeJudasOfOld ( talk) 11:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- The comments on Deletion Review serve that purpose quite well. There does not need to be a seperate discussion just for that. -- Jayron 32 13:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
...but it's your prerogative to get a second opinion, I suppose. It was a good block; in fact you might even want to full protect it. Half Shadow 21:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
You are right of course but let us help her out. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely help her out! That is as it should be! Please keep up the good work in improving Wikipedia, including helping people work through creating articles, especially navigating the confusing morass of Wikipedia's COI guidelines. You do awesome work! --
Jayron
32 19:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you.
Kittybrewster
☎ 19:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I tried to upload and link Allies (from Flicker) but something has gone wrong. Help!
Kittybrewster
☎ 20:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Um, I'd like to, but I think I only understood about every third word of that sentence. Please elaborate on what you are having trouble with, and I'll see what I can do to help. --
Jayron
32 20:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Do you mind reviewing this article? What is wrong with it?
Kittybrewster
☎ 15:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Do you mind reviewing this article? What is wrong with it?
Kittybrewster
☎ 15:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Um, I'd like to, but I think I only understood about every third word of that sentence. Please elaborate on what you are having trouble with, and I'll see what I can do to help. --
Jayron
32 20:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I tried to upload and link Allies (from Flicker) but something has gone wrong. Help!
Kittybrewster
☎ 20:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you.
Kittybrewster
☎ 19:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Per your notification about Scientology-related articles, I wanted to make sure that you saw this. Just to be clear, my interest is not Scientology, but ensuring a neutral point of view. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 21:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
When you said: "What kind of bullshit is this? Because someone doesn't react to an uninvited act of aggression in the way you want them to, they are somehow at fault?" I said that " I wouldn't, (...) say that the victim are at fault somehow." Not that they are at fault somehow. Regarding your indention, it seems you mean that I said so, when this is not the case. Quest09 ( talk) 01:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I am trying to find out why EpiSurveyor was removed from the list of open-source health software. I am the head of the company that makes it. I'm not an expert in Wikipedia, but I think from looking at the history that you removed it. Can you explain why, or point me to the person who did remove it if it isn't you?
The specific page I'm referring to is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open_source_healthcare_software
Thanks.
Jayron32,
Thank you so much for all your help, it is much appreciated!
What else do I need to provide for you to get this page published. In regards to verification and sources, most of it is public record and birth/residence/marital/kids stuff. His 'Author' sources I took from www.curtisjhopfenbeck.com and his books are available on www.barnesandnoble.com, amazon.com, etc. Please let me know what else I need to provide to you. His publicist was kind enough to forward me a photo as well, how do I submit that to you? When will the page be activated?
Thanks so much Jayron, I REALLY appreciate the help!
Happy Holidays,
Pete - "BuukWurm"
Buukwurm ( talk) 23:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance with the Harry M. Rubin page. It was getting pretty lonely fighting them by myself. They continue to edit with a pretty clear bias though. Any suggestions in terms of preventative action would be appreciated. ButtonwoodTree ( talk) 01:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- You can try to apply at WP:RFPP for protection, or just ask me and I can apply it. -- Jayron 32 03:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
re: [9]
Please see here.
If you don't mind I'd like to put the redirect back. Both articles are spam by the same author. 67.117.130.143 ( talk) 19:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Be my guest. --
Jayron
32 19:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks.
67.117.130.143 (
talk) 19:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've added the link the IP was mentioning (Apparently the edit filter stopped him/her) . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RabidMelon/Archive. Minima c ( talk) 22:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks.
67.117.130.143 (
talk) 19:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I just sent you an e-mail. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- I saw your reply. I'll be looking into it further. Thanks. :) ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
"Look, I have two toddlers at home that fight in a more civil manner. The whole "HE STARTED IT" motif of these threads is beginning to wear thin. It makes people lose interest in the content of these threads and instead makes us focus on the juvenile nature of the battle. If either one of you is "right" in the substance of this dispute, it is getting masked by the expression of the disput"
Jayron, that was good! (You're right too, by the way, Cirt and DC have been on just about every board fighting)
KoshVorlon
' Naluboutes Aeria Gloris 17:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Can you edit protect the page? There is a lot of chatter about him being bought out and replaced with Mike Leach, and I expect this to continue until there is an announcement next week as the AD said. Might also want to consider protecting Mike Leach (American football coach) and Maryland Terrapins football which have seen similar unconstructive additions. Strikehold ( talk) 01:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Not right now. I have not seen any reason to do so, so far we are keeping up fine with reverts and blocks. We don't protect preemptively; positive edits may yet come from IPs, and we don't want to scare off good-faith editors. I, and many others, are actively monitoring the situation. -- Jayron 32 01:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
If one wished to tag an article as " The Neutrality of the article is Disputed", as I have seen tagge donto so many articles, how does one DO it? I do not see the clear and unambiguous link to do this. Pls advise
Thnx Robert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheabernard ( talk • contribs) 04:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Again my apologies, I have searched the page and do not find a FUNCTION, Tab, Button, or control that says "Click here to dispute the Neutrality of this article", nor do I find any of the above labeled "NPOV". Please forgive my ignorance. Pls advise.
- Edit the article in question, paste the text {{NPOV}} at the top of the article. Hit save page. THEN go to the talk page by selecting the "discussion" tab. Select the "New section" button on the Talk: page, then leave an explanation as to why you left the tag in the first place. -- Jayron 32 06:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
In the Alexandra Powers article I created I found a website that says she is in Scientology. Here's the website: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/a/alexandra-powers.html Should this be used as a reference in the article? Please let me know. Neptunekh2 ( talk) 10:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on the matter. You need to ask this question at WP:RS/N. -- Jayron 32 15:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Please sign up for the tweets http://twitter.com/FluorideAction# —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.225.95.142 ( talk) 16:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please sign up for tweets on my left nut. It cares more about this than I do. --
Jayron
32 16:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
-
Bustin Jieber loves fluoride, you nasty IP. Don't you ever let me see you dissing Bustin.
Half
Shadow 17:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- They want the Cavity Creeps to win by taking away the Fluoristat. You creeps! Doc talk 18:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
-
Bustin Jieber loves fluoride, you nasty IP. Don't you ever let me see you dissing Bustin.
Half
Shadow 17:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's an actual scan from last week's paper, by the way. They really called him "Bustin Jieber" on the front page. Half Shadow 18:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
|
| This is an important message from
WikiProject Wikify. You are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Wikify. As agreed upon by the project, all members will be required to confirm their membership by February 1, 2010. If you are still interested in assisting with the project, please add yourself to the list at this page—this will renew your membership of WikiProject Wikify. Thank you for your support, WikiProject Wikify |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 19:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC).
Can you ask this user to back off? They continue to accuse me of things and refuse to back them up, directly in violation of WP:NPA.— Dæ dαlus + Contribs 20:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)