Consider withdrawing this nomination? The article has been improved (thanks for motivating that) and it seems unlikely to fail given the votes. --- tqbf 00:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash ( talk) 04:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 3 - January 2008 December issue | February issue Project News There are now 3,301 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. With 1,789 current featured articles, that brings the total of good and featured articles to 5,090! The most recently promoted articles are: Hurricane Daniel (2006), Tarbosaurus, The Murders in the Rue Morgue, Wicca, Seth MacFarlane, Stanley Internment Camp, Hurricane Karen (2007), Interstate 155 (Illinois), Tropical Storm Ingrid (2007), Brian Sings and Swings, Winston Churchill, Mzoli's, John Kefalas, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The backlog at Good Article Nominations has recently exploded to 236 unreviewed articles! Out of 264 total nominations, 17 are on hold, 10 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Attachment disorder, Byzantium under the Palaiologoi, Byzantium under the Angeloi, Wowowee, Tyrone Wheatley, Mina (singer), Jon Burge, Mercury Hayes, William Lowndes Yancey, and Toni Preckwinkle. The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (47 articles), Film and cinema (25 articles), Television and journalism (16 articles), Art and architecture (15 articles), and Politics and government (14 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 17 articles up for re-review. If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated! Reviewer of the Month Dihydrogen Monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month of December, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 of the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen Monoxide hails from Brisbane (which, incidentally, is almost a GA, kids ;)) and has been editing Wikipedia since August 2006. He mostly likes to review articles relating to music, Australia, or anything else that takes his fancy! He also has two articles waiting, and notes that there's still a huge backlog,... so get cracking! Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of December include: Awadewit ( talk · contribs) Canadian Paul ( talk · contribs) Derek.cashman ( talk · contribs) Drewcifer3000 ( talk · contribs) Elcobbola ( talk · contribs) Jackyd101 ( talk · contribs) Kane5187 ( talk · contribs) M3tal H3ad ( talk · contribs) Nehrams2020 ( talk · contribs) The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) VanTucky ( talk · contribs) Wassupwestcoast ( talk · contribs) Member News There are now 166 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 7 new members that joined during the month of December: Majoreditor ( talk · contribs) Bernstein2291 ( talk · contribs) The4325 ( talk · contribs) Pepsi2786 ( talk · contribs) Monowi ( talk · contribs) Rankun ( talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! GAReview Template Lots of you that frequent WP:GAN have undoubtedly seen the articles under review, marked with "Review - I am reviewing this article. ...". The articles have been marked as being under review by an editor using the {{ GAReview}} template. The purpose of this template is essentially to prevent two editors from reviewing the same article at the same time, so it's essentially a common courtesy notice to other editors so that they don't pass or fail an article while you're in the midst of collecting and writing comments. However, just because an article is marked, shouldn't preclude another editor from contributing to the review. If you'd like to review it, go ahead; simply collect your comments and write them down on the article's talk page – but don't pass or fail the article – leave that to the other reviewer. To use this template yourself, simply write "#:{{GAReview}} ~~~~" on the line immediately following the article's nomination at WP:GAN. You can even leave additional comments as well (e.g. "#:{{GAReview}} I will finish my review in the next 24 hours. ~~~~"). Reviewers marking articles with this template should also observe some common etiquette; please don't mark more than 1-3 articles as being under review at a time, and please try and finish your review within 3-5 days of marking the article. GA Sweeps After openly requesting the community for more participants into the Sweeps, we have 3 more members on the board. They are (in no particular order) Canadian Paul, VanTucky, and Masem. Canadian Paul will be sweeping "Middle East and the World" articles. VanTucky will be sweeping "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" and "Literature" articles. Masem will be sweeping "Television episodes". We're still looking for more reviewers. Interested individuals should contact OhanaUnited for details. At this moment, participation in the sweeps project is by invitation only, as we desire experienced reviewers who have a thorough and extensive knowledge of the criteria. This is to ensure that articles that have "fallen through the cracks" would be found and removed, and that additional articles don't fall through the cracks during the sweep. Currently, there are 16 members working on the project, and we have reviewed 74 articles in December 2007. Of those that are swept, 275 articles are kept as GA, 126 articles are delisted, and 5 promoted to FA. Did You Know,... ... that the total number of good and featured articles is now over 5000? ... that GA was formed on October 11, 2005 and was formerly called "Half-decent articles"? ... that there is a bot ( StatisticianBot) that gives a daily report on GAN? ... that many discussions were made over the years on whether GA should have a symbol placed on the main article space, yet at the end always removed? ... that there was a proposal to change the GA symbol to a green featured star? From the Editors Happy New Year, everyone! I'm just filling in for Dr. Cash as he's busy (or away) in real life. This explains why I wasn't prepared for a full-length article on GA process, and instead I resort to a tiny DYK for GA. OhanaUnited Happy New Year as well! I'm still here, and haven't totally disappeared. I had to cut back on editing and reviewing during the month of December as I made the transition from Flagstaff, Arizona to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. But I should be about settled in the Keystone State, so I'll be contributing more to Wikipedia again in the new year. Thanks to OhanaUnited for putting together much of the content for this newsletter! He's been working hard with the Sweeps, and the 'Did You Know' section is also a great idea, so I think that will become a regular feature now! I also figured out how to have a collapsible newsletter, so that will change our delivery options a bit. Cheers! Dr. Cash Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Madame X (album) ( talk | history | start review) • Gedling Town F.C. ( talk | history | start review) • Reggie Barnes (skateboarder) ( talk | history | start review) • Exile (American band) ( talk | history | start review) • Jude Law ( talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Louie Caporusso • Northallerton • Patrick Omameh • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013) Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list |

Welcome back, do0d! You've been missed. And the title ^, it awaits you. When are we doing this? Lara ❤ Love 05:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Join ussss! Join ussss! Hisss! Dfrg_ msc 06:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The undertow is going to add a co-nom. Once that's up and you've made your statement and answered the questions, transclude it or let me know and I will. And with that, good luck! Lara ❤ Love 19:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Want to wait for the undertow to add his nom? He gets home from work in about 4 hours. Oh, and jump on Yahoo. Lara ❤ Love 21:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply

4 hours ? Damn you - how am I going to beat the nom support now!?!?! Me and pre-transcluion voting don't mix :) BTW - cracking nomination Lara and excelent answers to the Q's Jayron. Good luck, and I look forward to supporting at about 08:00 UTC, probably in position 33 .....bah! (and to think I watchlisted this months ago). Pedro :  Chat  21:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply

It's up. Lara ❤ Love 03:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry. I went to Claim Jumper. I had these little burgers called sliders. Teh waiter, Michael, was alright. Welcome to your Rush Week. the_undertow ^talk 03:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply

No worries here at all... But then again, I am fairly laid back about these things...-- Jayron32| talk| contribs 03:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Dude, I couldn't have sold my soul to Satan to give you a more smooth RfA. Phew! That was a close call... almost lost my soul for nothing. Good times. You rock. Lara ❤ Love 14:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Are you sure you didn't? -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 22:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The January 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 21:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply

People are asking you different RFA questions than they are asking me. I first saw you at the Boeing 747 FAC. Thank you for your suggestions and eventual change to support. Archtransit ( talk) 17:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Congratulations, dude! I voiced my opinion in favor of you. I didn't know how much you rocked, but with my opinion and according to everybody else's opinions, I know you'll make a wonderful admin. Do you think I should try, too? I think I'm a big help to Wikipedia, I have over 4,000 edits, and I try to get articles featured. Not sure if I need more seniority, though. Anyway, congrats, and please leave me a message on my talk page! — Cuyler 91093 - Contributions 06:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Do you remember me? I hope you do. Well, if you don't, you can see here. — Cuyler 91093 - Contributions 06:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I figured that it would be stressful, but why not take a go at it? I have no other "skeletons in the closet" except for the ones mentioned on the page. I figured that if I come out and say "These are my mistakes" on the page already, people would see that I'm very integritous (is that a word? Integritous?). In real life, I have a lot of integrity (I hope and think). It would mean a lot if you could write a few words about me and co-nominate me for adminship, but if you can't, that's fine, too. Congrats for your induction, new admin! — Cuyler 91093 - Contributions 20:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I know canvassing to ask people to vote for me is bad, but can I ask people to co-nominate me? If not, I'm very sorry, and you may ignore the previous message. — Cuyler 91093 - Contributions 21:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply

No, no rush. You look like you've got a lot of supporters! You take care of your things, and I guess, if allowed, you can co-nominate me a little later. I think I'm going to put it on the nominations page now. — Cuyler 91093 - Contributions 23:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I withdrew my nomination for administratorship. I'm just not ready yet. I would be honored if you could adopt me or help me out with what administrators do. What do administrators do, and what can they do? — Cuyler 91093 - Contributions 00:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I noticed that you changed the records on Ball State and Rutgers to their records after the game. I am not sure if there is any standard on which record to use, but there is a discussion about it at Template talk:NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader:Reopening Team Records Discussion. Fbdave ( talk) 00:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey there! Cuyler91093 has loved you by placing a heart icon in the top-right corner of your userpage. Don't worry, it's not vandalism, but simply a small way to spread the WikiLove. If you don't really like it, feel free to revert it and make it go away, and no hard feelings; after all, it's just a small token of appreciation. If you like it, just add your name here, but again, there's no need to feel upset if you don't. Love and best wishes, — Cuyler 91093 - Contributions 07:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for everything about Wikipedia. You have been so helpful, and I want to extend the Wikilove back to you. Mind you, this is purely platonic. You have been Wikiloved! — Cuyler 91093 - Contributions 07:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, thank YOU! -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 12:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome. You deserve it! By the way, the edit summary box is my friend. I've done summaries for all of my edits since two days ago. — Cuyler 91093 - Contributions 07:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I posted a comment at Talk:New England town. Please explain why you believe the linked to article is misleading. Thanks. -- Polaron | Talk 23:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, just added a further comment at Village Pump and wondered if you had any further comments? Thanks, Ekantik ^talk 18:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey Jay! I've just posted the article I Don't Remember at WP:PR. Since you're interested in music, I was wondering if you'd be interested in giving the article a looking over... maybe you'll see something we've missed? That'd be awesome! Thanks! -- rm 'w a vu 08:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your review :D And congrats on teh powerz adminship :D Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

File:Admin Trophy.png

Yeah, Jayron. Very nicely responded PR and congratulations on the RfA. I actually had forgotten that you were in RfA still when I asked you to help. Now I feel like I blackmailed you into it or something. How cool am I? -- rm 'w a vu 08:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjB scribe 03:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Jayron! Congratulations, buddy. That could not have gone better. The cabal awaits you... Lara ❤ Love 03:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Well done, well done. Super! Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 03:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Congratulations! Your shiny new mop and bucket have arrived. Use them wisely! Festive regards, Hús ö nd 06:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

And congrats from me as well! Tiptoety ^talk 06:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Congratulations :) You'll do well, I think. Spebi 06:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Welcome to the Admins! I'm sure you'll do great with the tools. Best wishes and keep up the good work! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 06:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Congratulations Jayron! Van Tucky 19:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Very well deserved, Jayron. All the best. Geometry guy 19:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Yay! I got a cookie! Thank you so much for the cookie! It's the first one I ever got. This makes my day! — Cuyler 91093 - Contributions 06:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Super-duper congrats for adminship! I know you'll make a wonderful one. — Cuyler 91093 - Contributions 07:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Good luck! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 06:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

From me too, good job! Spencer 11:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Great work! Congratulations. Majoreditor ( talk) 13:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello, Jayron32 ... You declined the {{ Db-repost}} I placed on this article ... I don't have access to the previous versions of it, but it sure looks like what I remember from the Anastacia Rose AfD in which it was included (you may have to scroll down to where it was included) ... the Logs show that this was re-created and deleted again just a few days ago ... something on the Discussion page should mention this in order to avoid confusion in the future ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 ( talk · contribs) 09:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I beg to differ ... http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Log&page=Lena+Yada is the logs for "Lena Yada" ... it has been deleted multiple times (the admin Nikki311 ( talk · contribs) was involved in the AfD) ... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anastacia Rose ordered the deletion of this article, as well as the two individual articles about the Bella sisters:

• Bri Bella (Brianna Garcia) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nicole Bella (Nicole Garcia) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This IS a repost of an article deleted by AfD ... it was just a few weeks ago, so it is fresh in my memory. — 72.75.72.63 ( talk) 17:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thnx fer deleting the article, and I think that leaving the discussion page was a good alternative to salting it to prevent recreation should the subject become notable at some future time. — 72.75.72.63 ( talk) 01:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari 19:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

A rather belated appreciation, but congrats. Great work over at AIV already. Rudget . 22:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Did you actually look at the sources? they are all self published promotional sites. Ridernyc ( talk) 23:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

It's actually down as a result of issues involving memory leaks (causing it to take up more resources than necessary). It'll be up soon, don't worry about it. MessedRocker ( talk) ( write these articles) 23:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear Jayron32,

What did you mean when you said that my article showed blatant advertising? I really don't understand, because I wasn't advertising the FlyFusion pen, I was only writing about it because I had just gotten it for Christmas, and there wasn't anything else to write about. Plus, why would I have need to advertise? I would only have need of it if I were part of the company--which I'm not. As you can see, any one who owns that pen is too young to be a part of any company, much less have a job (I own the pen, hint, hint). Plus, I wrote about the pen's flaws. If I were advertising, would I want my customer to see the problems with the pen? No! I would try to make the pen seem like the most perfect thing in the world. But, I kept my description of the pen informative, short, and unbiased. I spoke of the pen's good points, and its bad points. So, please thoroughly read through articles before you deem them as "blatant advertising", or any other label. It is degrading to those who have spent a lot of time on their articles./P>

With All Due Respect,

-- Princess Janay ( talk) 00:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Congratulations! I hope you will do a great job as an admin. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 08:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Welcome. See WP:NAS. Bearian ( talk) 17:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I just wish they would lose one game already. Having already gotten a dynasty it seems completely unnecessary to pull a perfect season out of thin air.

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For nailing my vandalism on the talk page for the New England Patriots I herby present you with the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. I am quite certain that no other vandal you have corrected would be so nice as to present you with this. 75.19.69.40 ( talk) 05:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

User:LaraLove/BRC Meetup <-- Build it and they shall come. Lara ❤ Love 19:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Did you check the link? The article appears to exist only to promote a campsite. Ros0709 ( talk) 20:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Ok, I've seen your response on the article talk page. Not sure I agree, but will let this one go! Ros0709 ( talk) 20:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Good catch. Removed the link. However, the article STILL did not have to be speedied. Teh article makes real assertions of importance. I will remove the link... -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 20:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello again, Jayron32 ... would you please WP:SALT this article:

• Lena Yada (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It looks as if it has been recreated again. <Sigh!> Perhaps you can restore the talk page so that its history will not be lost again ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 ( talk · contribs) 21:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Lightly salted. If more seasoning is needed when this one runs out, let me know. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 03:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Reply: Thnx ... one month seems fine for now ... it can always be salted longer if need be. :-) — 72.75.72.63 ( talk) 00:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, and I'm sorry I couldn't get this question asked quickly enough at AIV due to edit conflicts. I'll never be able to prove that a user saw a level 4 or bv warning unless they edit twice past it, so what's a reasonable amount of time to allow if they only edit once past it? Thanks!   — Jeff G. ( talk| contribs) 07:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Already responded at your talk page. All future comments will be made there, to keep it all together... -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 07:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi,

I have created the article talking about Yissy a cuban drummers and you have deleted it. I just woul like to know why this article has been deleted. This will help me to create good article and be not deleted in the future.

Thank you in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amagon rosh ( talk • contribs) 10:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for replacing my article, Jayron32. I will get it cleaned up in a few days, because for school, we are supposed write a research article. So, I can write about the pen, and transfer my essay to Wikipedia. It should have an encyclaepedic tone when I'm done.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Princess Janay ( talk • contribs)

Thank you for dealing with the matter I brought up on the Admin Board so promptly. I clearly need to read up about how to deal with things like this. I have obviously been misunderstanding the 3RR and have been holding back from reporting JackQPR partly because at least one other user (jimbo online) has also been involved in removing the edits each time, though it has been myself who has left all the messages for JackQPR. And also because I was hoping I could help JackQPR who does seem at least to be trying to figure out about adding sources, despite their unwillingness to discuss it at all. I didn't even realise that the WP:RFC page existed so will have a read about that page too. Is there an article that would help about any of this? Thanks, ♦Tangerines♦· Talk 17:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, sorry to bother you again, but User:JackQPR would appear (at least it certainly looks that way) to have come back as both User:QPRben and the IP user User:82.45.213.208 both of whose edit patterns (see here - [1] and here [2]) are identical thus far to JackQPRs edits, all of which are on the same article and all of which are adding the same things over and over. How long was the block for, do you know? And is there any way of checking if these two users are one and the same person or not? Thanks. ♦Tangerines♦· Talk 20:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your reply. Bearing in mind what you had said previosuly about taking these things to Admins earlier, I decided to post it on ANI and I see that QPRben has now been banned as a sockpuppet of JackQPR so must have been one and the same person. The thing is with them that they aren't vandalising the article, it is just their seeming lack of ability to communicate, discuss the matter and take on board the advice given to them. Ah well it seems sorted for now. Thanks again, ♦Tangerines♦· Talk 03:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I just want to let you know I was really disheartened to see how casually and tactlessly you passed off NHRHS2010's real issues. Saying they are merely whining is was just very poor form. As an admin I guess I would have expected more. Bstone ( talk) 05:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You are entirely right. My actions were inexcusable. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 06:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you so, so much for taking responsibility for this. I cannot tell you how much it means. I guess the only other step would be to apologize to NHRHS2010 on his/her talk page. Again, thank you. Bstone ( talk) 06:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply

And your fantastic contributions and suggestions at Peer Review, we've nominated " I Don't Remember" as a Featured Article. Just a courtesy note. Thanks again for your great help given there! -- rm 'w a vu 13:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply

And so it was... welcome. Lara ❤ Love 19:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply

MU-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 19:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, and there's this too. Lara ❤ Love 19:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Shreds guitar* Welcome to the Jungle, we've got do do do, take anything, you, uh.... Jungle. Right, so that's the official welcome song. Were not the Guns 'n Roses Cabal so take it or leave it. Welcome brother, wear your robe with pride. <Rocks out> Dfrg_ msc 09:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Several people were blocking so fast it became a race to complete. As soon as the investigation was complete, I found people had been already blocked. Archtransit ( talk) 20:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [3]. -- Maniwar ( talk) 00:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Enable your email. How you passed RfA without doing so is truly a wonder! the_undertow ^talk 07:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Don't blame me... you nominated me, f00l... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 13:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

It was vice-nom. I'm the Dick Cheney to Lara's Bush. the_undertow ^talk 18:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Your dick did WHAT to Lara's bush???-- Jayron32. talk. contribs 18:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not touching this with a...nm. There's no way out of this. Zipping it! the_undertow ^talk 18:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

D00d, don;t get your Cheney caught in your zipper... Bad times, really... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 18:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Dick's getting pissed here! My shotgun is loaded and there's no quail around. the_undertow ^talk 18:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't want to get shot with ANYTHING outta your dick... piss or otherwise... Keep it in your pants man! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 18:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Damn, I'm popular. First all the buzz about my pics, now this. Calm down boys. XD Hahaaha. Lara ❤ Love 18:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

My request for adminship was successful at 64/1/2! Many thanks for your participation and I will endeavor to meet your expectations. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^{( Converse)} 09:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your help with the article List of Cuban Americans. I have attempted the Third Opinion option and that hasn't resolved anything. What's the best route do you think I should head on to get this resolved? This user has many sock puppet accounts and I have asked him (or her) to keeop the disputed names off the list until a third opinion is heard, to no success. Very stubborn bloke, but if you see talk page I have provided conversation on why rumors, unauthorized bios, multinational families, and baptismal certificates are not valid references to include these entries on the list. Please help!!! -- XLR8TION ( talk) 19:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm interested in your reasoning for this semi-protect, if you wouldn't mind taking a moment. If you take a closer look at the article history, I think you'll see that this is a matter of a content dispute and not vandalism. In particular, I would encourage you to look at the contributions of the alleged IP vandal. (No other IP has edited the article in the last three days.) It would be great if you could explain to me why you consider this behavior vandalism.

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 19:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Fixed it... Fully protected now, asked all involved to seek resolution through WP:DR. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 19:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for taking the time to review :) Didn't want to change it without consulting you because I figured you were still on. Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 19:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

thankyou so much, it was much needed. Eyesbomb 16 january 2008 21:03 (CET)

No problem. Incedentally, I meant that about both of you cooling down. Either or both of you may be blocked if the problems continue... Good luck, and I hope you can work this out. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 20:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Please see this page as it evolves over the next few days regarding the block evading ip

User:Ghanadar_galpa/ip-vandal

Ghanadar galpa ( talk) 20:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Could you get involved as a mediator in Talk:Indophobia if you can spare the time? Actually. Most of the regularly involved editors (incl myself) are slowly reaching consensus and agreement. It's only the anon who drops by every now and then and disrupts the process... Ghanadar galpa ( talk) 00:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey there, pulled your name of AN/I randomly. I'm a new admin, (like, yesterday) and I need someone else's eyes on this article, which has been deleted three times today, twice by me, and is now sitting with a CSD tag on it. You can read more at the Talk:Icon Championship Wrestling page. Your opinion is appreciated! Thanks, Keeper | 76 22:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC) And when I hit preview, they are read. Now they've been deleted 4 times. Keeper | 76 22:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

It looks like Woody already took care of it. For what its worth, my mop is only a week older than your mop. But if you need any more help, let me know! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 22:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi well you did say to ask if I had anything else! Would you have a look at the edit history for Andrea Bocelli for me? Since early January there has been a spate of edits virtually all of them of a critical nature. The thing that is standing out and that makes it odd is that a new user comes along with no edit history and nothing on their userpage, their first edit is then on that article, sometimes their only edit, but all of the users (they are easy to see as they are all the various "red" users} then don't return again. They all seem to be following a very similar pattern of (at times) sutbely trying to change the article so that it reads more critical of Bocelli. I should point out that I have no issue at all with criticism being introduced where appropriate (and to be honest I am not an expert on the subject anyway it is just in my watchlist as a page I just took an interest in), but when there seems to be this pattern of very similar edits happening, it just seems that something is going on. Take user LognOne and Legacie for instance (both of `course new "red" users). On 10 January LogonOne removed a whole section,c laiming it was trivia. Then when someone reverted it, later that same day along comes Legacie, another new user whose first edit is to again remove the same section, with exactly the same reasoning. I first started noticing it simply because of all these new users appearing and this pattern emerging. Whilst it seems to have gone into overdrive recently, when I then checked further back in the articles edit history it seems to have been going on for a while, certainly in December too with new "red" users appearing, with a handful of edits all on that one article, and then never editing again. And it happend sporadically before that, just this month it has gone into overdrive with all these new users choosing that article to pick to edit, and then never edit again! Maybe it is a blocked user trying to evade the block? It could also be someone who wants to make it seem as if there are avrious users all of whom have this opinion about Bocelli? Something odd is happening, and I don't know how to approach it really? I realise it might take a while if you do get the time to check, but something is odd about it all. Thanks. ♦Tangerines♦· Talk 04:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank goodness it isn't just me then who thinks it is odd! There are some edits that are as you say, unrelated, as one of them just vandalised the page with the usual "he is gay" stuff, but a lot of it is all very similar, which is highly unusual for a whole host of new users to be doing! ♦Tangerines♦· Talk 04:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Wow. I thought that maybe there would be a few that were connected but not that many. Looking at the list I've come across the User:Gitelmesomeofdat user before too. There is another user User:Gitelmesome who also seems almost certainly to be related when you check their contributions, but it not in that list. They have already been blocked indefinitely though. And the "botchellifan" user is also at the same IP address. I really don't understand why people do it, but "whatever floats their boat" I suppose. At least now it can be sorted. ♦Tangerines♦· Talk 05:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

it seems to me the moderaters have a vandetta against pakistanis and are pro indian this Ghanadar galpa is allowed to delete and revert sourced data and when i delete data which is not even sourced i get blocked why the double standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.235.241 ( talk) 09:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• I have never blocked this IP address. I know which conflict you are talking about, but I have never blocked anybody with regards to the conflict. I have protected some articles to stop people from fighting over them, but I have never endorsed one version over the other. If you have concerns, please consider taking this matter to dispute resolution. Refusing to do so WILL lead to blocks in the future for BOTH sides of this conflict. Please be constuctive about this and learn to collaborate. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 13:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

When did i call you a racist please stop twisting my words mister robes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.208.20 ( talk) 17:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Who are you and to what are you referring? -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Just FYI, they're all the same guy. Still hasn't been blocked, though - Revolving Bugbear 17:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I am having a hard time assigning moral high-ground in this debate. I have no doubt that there is a "right" side as far as the content issue is going, but neither side has enamoured me with their civility and their behavior towards trying to work with others. What is your opinion on how to proceed? Blocking seems harsh, but if 3RR violations start again, we may need to block both sides in this; however the fact that one editor edits dynamically (not his fault, probably his ISP) means we might need to resort to a rangeblock or extend full protection. What is your opinion on what to do here? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right on both counts -- both sides are acting problematically, and the dynamic IP is problematic. I would be much happier if he would create an account. If it comes to that, a range block might be the way to go. The prot log also makes it look like things might not go a lot better than before when protection comes down. - Revolving Bugbear 17:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I'll assume you are checking here... Looking that over, this may require a long-term full protect. I hope that they will get it cleared up before then, but this is nucking futs here... If the edit war restarts, we can probably expect to have to full protect this for a much longer time. Or block the principals. Do you know how to do rangeblocks, if that is needed? Because I have no idea... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 18:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

By the way, I should point out that legitimate editors on Talk:Indophobia, including myself, are reaching a decent sort of consensus on content. it is this ip address and his socks that's doing the trolling (as a simple perusal at the talk page will undoubtedly reveal). A long term semiprotect would definitely go a long way, since it will get rid of the troll and leave myself, User:Conjoiner and User:Pahari Sahib (who appears to be a legitimate editor and who is a Pakistani national and can offer a counterbalance from their perspective) to edit the article according to wikipedia principles. The claims made by the ip about "Indian" bias are conspiracist nonsense. Ghanadar galpa ( talk) 02:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

While I have had problems with Ghanadar galpa in the recent past, he has become a lot easier to communicate with and is attempting to work with rather than against editors with a different opinion to his own. However, the anon IP that has commented here appears to be intent on engaging in edit warring and, in my opinion, is stalking Ghanadar galpa. A look at his contributions reveals this clearly [4]. Rather than protect the articles concerned, it may be more useful to deal directly with this anonymous editor.-- Conjoiner ( talk) 18:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, a semi-protection would probably work.-- Conjoiner ( talk) 18:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

OK, let's see what the anon editor does next.-- Conjoiner ( talk) 18:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm currently looking at the atuff in the talk section of that article (REM - Accelerate), and should have something in there soon, once I get caught up on all that is happening... Edit Centric ( talk) 17:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Grassy ass... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Dude, that album isn't even out for 3 months. What if it sucks? What if only one of them thinks it sucks and the other likes it? Have fun with that. I've looked at it too, the protection was appropriate. They both (Dudesleeper and Eyesbomb) need to step away slowly. An edit dispute over an non-released album? See WP:LAME. Keeper | 76 17:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I am not even concerned about that. Its the throwing around threats of getting others "banned" that is problematic for me. I agree, both need stop the pointless war, but it is getting beyond that state... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Sounds fine to me! I am more than willing to extend WP:AGF to him. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 18:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

No worries. Thanks for the heads-up! -- Kralizec! ( talk) 18:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I went ahead and commuted it to time-served [5]. Hopefully this assumption of good faith will not come back to haunt me. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 15:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, it appears that he chose poorly [6]. I will not make the same mistake twice [7]. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 21:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thankyou very much for directing me to the page for making my user page prettier!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Princess Janay ( talk • contribs)

Let's form a small RFA class of 9. These are admin who became admin at about the same time. John Carter, Jeepday, Rudget, Jayron32, Archtransit, Appraiser, Kbthompson, Canley, J-stan. It would just be a friendly support group or like a school class. No administrative tasks needed to form this group, just know each other so if we need an opinion or want to discuss something, we'll be there for each other. Archtransit ( talk) 19:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Cool. Always glad to help out where needed. Count me in! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 19:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Jayron32, can I retain you for a bit on this, just as a safety net? As I am not an admin, I don't have the ability to block users or protect articles. I'm going to try and facilitate some constructive dialogue between all the editors, but if it degrades into a "free-for-all" or one or the other editors goes "rogue" on us, I'd like some calm, concise and rational backup, if you would be willing to provide that. Thanks! Edit Centric ( talk) 19:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Awesome deal! I really don't know a lot about the topic of discussion, other than it's an upcoming REM album, and that I like REM. Other than that, I'm "Switzerland" on the whole thing... Edit Centric ( talk) 19:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Is it bad to use smileys on Wikipedia like ;)? I heard it from User:Rgoodermote, but I want an admin's opinion. — Cuyler 91093 - Contributions 04:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Uh, what? :) Smileys? No problems using them on talk pages :) Have at it! :) I wouldn't use them in articles, but that goes without saying.  :) That being said, if they offend another user, don't antagonize them :). But seriously... c'mon... did someone really object to a smiley :)... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 12:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

For your help in unblocking account User:Sumple. I was foolish to not have noticed it - and kept posting on AN/I for all that time! Thanks again, -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 06:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

IP address: 70.88.142.249, seems to have been unblocked and has moved on to vandalizing the Walter Camp article. I have no idea how to request a block. Any assistence will be appreciated. Aepryus ( talk) 15:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Blocked him again. See User talk:70.88.142.249. If he returns when this block expires, just let me know and we can try this again. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I replied on my talk page. Did you add it to your watchlist? — Cuyler 91093 - Contributions 19:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

No, I don't have it with me right now. Perhaps on the weekend. On weekdays, this is my only option. — Cuyler 91093 - Contributions 20:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

No questions. :D Thank you! How very detailed! — Cuyler 91093 - Contributions 22:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I added some references to BKD llp. I think the article is better now. -- Eastmain ( talk) 01:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Copy that last message, Ghostrider, fixed my own flub! Good on ya! :-D Edit Centric ( talk) 04:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron32, I noticed you reverted Bocelli back to opera from popera. I had changed him to popera based on it being a more accurate description (besides the fact that he is probably the most famous embodiment of popera today) and because of his inclusion in the popera article. If you check my talk page, you will see tangerines acknowledged his oversight of bocelli's inclusion in the popera article. As you requested verification indepedant of that page, here's a mainstream article where he is described as the 'king of popera.' ( http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/27/1093518069667.html) And strictly speaking, operatic singers are people with a full, traditional training in operatic singing and whose roles are in the opera house. They may occasionally crossover to mainstream (eg. Pavarotti). A popera singer goes the other way. Background is in popular songs but with an opera-like style (like Rufus Wainwright), and then perhaps crossing over to actual opera. Belcanti ( talk) 05:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm fine with the compromise, although it might look a bit funny citing him for operatic pop. That would almost be like citing Pavarotti for tenor. But in the absence of a better solution, I'm fine with it. By the way, it appears that operatic pop and popera are synonymous. I don't think tangerines realizes that the two terms refer to the same wiki article. Belcanti ( talk) 05:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Synonymous, maybe, but popera carries a bit of perjorative taste to it, where as Operatic pop does not. Plus, Operatic pop doesn't sound like a neologism. Its always nice to use more formal English rather than somewhat made-up word.-- Jayron32. talk. contribs 13:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron32, I just wanted to see if you had some time to take a look at the U2 article and support (or oppose) its FA nomination at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/U2. I saw that you were an enthusiastic supporter during the last FAC barring some minor critiques that I hope have now been resolved. Any support is much appreciated by me and the other Wikipedians who've worked hard on this article over the last couple of years. Wikipedia brown ( talk) 09:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Some suggestions implemented - more to come...

I've made some changes that you've suggested, and I will look at some of the others - as I hope others will. Please keep an eye out and offer suggestions as appropriate. regards -- Merbabu ( talk) 14:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I've added a few things too in response to your suggestions. Let us know if there's anything else we can do -- hope we can spruce it up enough for you to change your mind. Wikipedia brown ( talk) 18:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your help.

Thanks,

Tovojolo ( talk) 12:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi there! I've just nominated S Club at WP:PR and I was wondering whether you would be so kind to maybe check out the article and tell me what you think? I'm aware this reads horribly, sickly sweet, and like a standard copy/pasted response, but I really don't know what to write! It'd be great if you could get around to checking out the article. :) (P.S. This isn't a copy and pasted message) - ǀ Mikay ǀ 12:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I just nominated the article for Peer Review and would appreciate anybody taking a look at it for writing style, wiki-formatting and pointing out spots that need better coverage. I am hoping to eventually get the article to GA status so could use some help, thanks.-- The Dominator ( talk) 15:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey, could you return to the article for a few seconds and skim through to look where I still need sources, cause I referenced every paragraph and most of the statements, I also consulted printed sources like you said, but it still seems to me like its missing something. Could you take a look at that please?-- The Dominator ( talk) 16:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks again, I can't believe I missed the Tom Stoppard thing! Anyway, I wanted to ask about websites where the author or other information isn't given, is it a complete necessity to have it there? Does lack of author indicate a non-reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominik92 ( talk • contribs) 19:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 2, Issue 1 • January 19, 2007 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors Coming and going	Features B-class audit shows stunning results	State and national updates Leaderboard California Illinois New York New Jersey Oklahoma Pennsylvania Wisconsin
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. — ^Mitch 32 ^contribs 20:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

This is the reason why this article needs semi-protection, not the single edit by the IP who added the info about the PIs. This kind of vandalism happens pretty much on a daily basis when the article is not protected, and is not always caught quickly. There are serious WP:BLP issues surrounding this article, as well as issues about prejudicing an eventual trial, and Wikipedia has a responsibility to prevent this kind of thing from happening. Please consider restoring semi-protection. Harry was a white dog with black spots ( talk) 10:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree that there is a lot of vandalism on Wikipedia. But most of the vandalism doesn't involve WP:BLP. Wikipedia could be sued for the instance above, and for this subsequent one. In order to mitigate its liability, Wikipedia would have to show that it did everything possible to stop the libelous contributions. Immediate reversion is good, but it doesn't always happen. If it can be shown that IP editors are responsible for the vast bulk of the vandalism on a given artice, preventing them from editing the article would show that Wikipedia is taking its responsibilities seriously. There is good precendence for this on other articles. Where libel issues are concerned, one instance of vandalism per day is far too many. Harry was a white dog with black spots ( talk) 13:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

What I see is a huge rush to ban the guy. Why? Why not some deliberation? I never said "this guy should not be banned".

Look what other's wrote:

I want to stress that I do not agree or disagree with the block - I just think it needs to be discussed to ensure that there is community support for an action: B

…and may be a tad too controversial about how edits are made, but he/she isn't totally wrong.: Anynobody (referring to the blocked user)

Has CltFn been a party to any form of DR at all?: Anynobody (I think there’s been no DR)

I think an indef. block is a bit harsh, considering what he did. CltFn has, after all, been good for over a year since the last block…I am very confused as to why this disserves an indef. block.: Yahel Guhan

All I am proposing is that we give him one last chance to change before an indef. block after a month. Heck, we give repeat vandals that opportunity all the time, with 1 month, 3 month, 1 year blocks, but almost never indef. Besides, at least he remained on the talk page for the most part this time, rather than in the article, where he is less disruptive, which may mean he might be trying to improve himself: Yahel Guhan

Not that I am trying to sanction what he did, but I do think an indef. time period is excessive, at least at this point: Yahel Guhan

A suggestion for formal WP:DR has been made onthe user's page. Perhaps, given his long-term contributor status, it may be to our advantage to let him try that process?: ThuranX

I am however also happy to endorse Thuran's proposed course of action and comments above also.: Orderinchaos struck by Orderinchaos 17:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC) - selective quote misrepresents my position reply

based on looking through his contributions, if an admin is willing to keep a close eye on a problem user, that's a low risk proposition: B

I don't have a problem with Archtransit's action providing tha the follows through on it. I do have a problem with the same admin who originally made the block reimplementing it.: B

Of course, it's easy to do nothing and look the other way. Given the above quotes, I thought that immediate ban was not indicated. I thought that a compromise was in order. The details of a compromise is not the question but if there should be a compromise.

This is not wikilawyering. Wikilawyering would be a hard line stance for unblocking to counter the hard line, no bargaining stance of the pro-immediate banning side.

I think feelings are too hurt or opinions too entrenched in this case for quick resolution. However, why the quick ban. Some cooling off, hand holding, mentorship of each edit, or allowing 1-2 days (or more) of editing followed by review are just some ideas. There hasn't even been discussion of the bad edits in question. All of this can be done in a few days, not 15 hours. After all, RFAs take 7 days, ArbCom elections take 14 days, featured article candidates are on the board 2 weeks or so, why the rush to ban the editor forever and denying him the chance to defend himself? Archtransit ( talk) 19:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply

He had the chance to defend himself. If you wish to defend him, do so at ANI. If YOU think the block is unjustified, provide the evidence that exonerates him. However, to say he has not been given the opportunity to behave himself is inaccurate. He was placed under a reasonable set of guides for editing the last time he was indefiniately blocked. He broke those restrictions not once, not twice, but 3 times. WP:DR is for users that are involved in disputes with each other, not for users whose behavior is patently and repeatedly disruptive over a long period of time. There is a difference between a dispute (which involves 2 or more editors) and outright disruption (which is one editor acting like a WP:DICK). Again, if you have evidence that would indicate that the block was in error, please provide it at WP:ANI so consensus can be reached on how to handle it. But please do not undo the actions of other admins without reaching consensus at ANI first. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 20:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The editor is blocked. He cannot respond to ANI. At the least, he should be conditionally unblocked and allowed edits to DR and ANI. Archtransit ( talk) 20:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Go ahead and make any proposals to ANI you wish then. Not that you need it, but you have my blessing to do so. See what the other people say there. If you can build consensus, good job. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that. :) I was afraid it would be deleted. How are you doing? — Cuyler 91093 - Contributions 05:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Doing good man. How about you? Have you gotten more involved in deletion processes yet? -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 05:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I added a ref to the article. The permissions on the image may be a topic of discussion. Uploading to Commons would be a better idea. the_undertow ^talk 05:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Cool, but the article itself is still not speedy material. Good stuff on your reference though. Well done. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 06:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I didn't say anything about the article. I said to have a chat about free-license vs. just allowing an image to just one page. We are trying to keep it free, yo! the_undertow ^talk 06:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Well you go ahead and have that chat... I will not stand in your way... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 20:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi. I'm doing okay. I haven't been getting involved in deletions as much. I'm focusing on creating pages and redirecting pages. I have finals coming up, too, so I can't get that much more involved. See ya later! — Cuyler 91093 - Contributions 00:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Kewl. Well, have fun on your exams. As always, if you need any help, let me know... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 00:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply

An AFD for this article already exists. Just FYI. 71.192.54.222 ( talk) 06:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which closed unsuccessfully with 25 support, 18 oppose, and 6 neutral. I'll look forward working with you. -- BritandBeyonce ( talk) 07:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

See my comment on the article's talk page. It's a hoax; Google search yields no results. Gromlakh ( talk) 01:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. I'll just AfD it instead. Thanks for the response! Gromlakh ( talk) 01:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello. BroadwayWorld.com is an important, verifiable reference source for musical theatre articles. I wish that, before you blocked links to websites entirely, you would leave a message at the project talk page for the projects whose articles use the links, so that the question could be better discussed. This has happened in many articles that I edit, especially in the WP:G&S project. What should I do in the future when I notice valuable links being deleted? It seems like it is usually too late by then. It may be that some editor misused links to the website, but that doesn't mean that the website it no good. Are they permanently blocked? Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 15:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Um, wrong person. I have asked Betacommand to NOT blacklist the site. You may want to take it up with him... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 16:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi. Sorry, I didn't mean to criticize you specifically, I just saw that you were involved in the discussion at ANI. I'm just trying to understand how to avoid these premature blacklisting. I left a message at Betacommand's talkpage, and I would be happy to add my voice to yours. I'm only saying that it would be great if, before sites are blacklisted, the issue is discussed at relevant project talkpages instead of just at the ANI page, which most people don't monitor. Best regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssilvers ( talk • contribs) 16:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You denied speedy for Hublot. I won't dispute the point but so that I can do a better job in the future while on New Pages Patrol, could you please identify the multiple claims of importance? I still don't see them. Sbowers3 ( talk) 16:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply

HeaveTheClay tell him to stop he personal attacked me he takes reliable things off pages he undoes off topic thing please help i really don't want to get by this user please he aleasy person attacks me please help.-- DarkFierceDeityLink 00:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

So your going to let him talk to me like come on look at the history he's up to no good no matter what we tell him he does it anyway i'm not guna let him keep callin me a troll even after he personal attacked me 3 times just to let you know he hurt by calling me this "I have no reason for being upset but if you lack the mentality for knowing my actions on the Smash Bros series page then you really should stop talking to me. I'm asking you now to stop trying to troll me. Grow up.--HeaveTheClay" Do your job I have dyslexia 1st off and as rules say he should at least get a warning.-- DarkFierceDeityLink 00:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)(not sure if you read this) reply

why did you revert my edit in the talk page of wikipedia: etiquette? The reaosn i did that edit was because new additions to the Etiquette page should go on the etiquettes main space rathern than its talk page. the users had accidentaly placed them there and i moved them to where they belonged. Smith Jones ( talk) 00:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

okay i undestand now but i really think that ALL of the discussion belongs on the main space with the rest of the entries in the etiquette page since the last time i accidentally put a complaint on the etiquette's talk page it was moved to the main page and i was informed that it was policy to limit any new entries to the main page rather thatn the discussion page. Smith Jones ( talk) 00:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm having trouble with some people in two articles and i need your advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onepiece226 ( talk • contribs) 02:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Well this person in the Ed, Edd, n Eddy section is giving crap for adding information that I had a reference for. Onepiece226 ( talk) 03:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Onepiece226 reply

Jayron32, please explain to this person the basics of Wikipedia: that it is an encyclopedia, and that we do not publish rumors and speculation. He found a site that he tried to link to, which was nothing but a collection of demos for some future episode of Ed, Edd n Eddy. He then tried to list this unaired and unfinished episode on a page of already aired episodes, as if it had aired and is real. He does not understand what Wikipedia is about, and sees my defending of the article from rumor and speculation as a personal attack. Thank you. -- Elaich ^talk 16:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I am not getting in the middle of this to decide who is right and who is wrong. Please seek dispute resolution by using such venues as Third Opinions and Requests for Comment to seek out uninvolved editors. Thank you. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Well Jayron, it looks like things have quieted down quite a bit over at that article's talk space, and that the editors are finally working together to make the article a good one. (We did it!) Thanks again for all of your help and attention to things there, YOU rawk!

I have another issue that I've just picked up this evening. (Please see Wikiquette alerts section for details.) Looks like a "subject matter expert" (hmm, if an "ex" is a has-been, and a "spurt" is a drip under pressure...) and an anony-mouse IP editor are getting into a revert war over content. If I find that this has tiptoed into 3RR territory, I might need your "velvet hammer" to be applied. I just don't know yet, as the details are being fleshed out as we type... Edit Centric ( talk) 04:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I am going to stay uninvolved in that one, if only because it appears both parties have now agreed to go to the talk page to hammer out their differences... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 04:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Well THAT was quick, but again a good thing. Let's see how that one goes, but looks promising right from the out... Edit Centric ( talk) 05:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Guess I'm the one who broke the AIV bots. Sorry about that. I see you were doing all of the work for them. I guess its all fixed now. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 18:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Eh... whatever. No big whoop. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 18:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

U hasz it. </lolcat> - Revolving Bugbear 18:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

U hasz mi anzer -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 19:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Unlike DFDL, HTC's user talk page is locked right now from editing by lower-level editors. Could you do me a BIG favor, and post this to the page;

Post-block discussions

HeaveTheClay, once your block is lifted, I cordially invite you to participate in discussions on the article at Super Smash Brothers Brawl. Please remember when participating in these discussions, to follow the following suggestions;

• Please remain civil.
• The past is exactly that, the past. Leave it at the door.
• Be constructive, clear and concise in describing what you would like to accomplish.
• NO REVERT WARRING. 3 Revert Rule applies dynamically.
• Try to work towards concensus, or at the least, compromise.

Again, once your account is unblocked, I encourage you to take part in these discussions, as they can not only serve the article and Wikipedia as a whole, but also build your skills as an editor. Thank you, and I look forward to seeing you there! Edit Centric (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Pretty standard stuff, I posted identically at DFDL's talk page... Edit Centric ( talk) 20:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You ARE the bomb dot com! Edit Centric ( talk) 22:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi just wondering if you could have a quick scan for me over the article? As you will see I have virtually re-written the entire article. I have also worked with Belcanti who has also helped me today after my final edit by sorting out some stuff. The criticism section is one area that seems to create strong views. When I was researching into it I read through one review fro the New York Times chief Music Critic as well as another one he did a year later. What I then did was expand to explain where the criticism was from etc, but also added some responses to his criticism in the form of letters to the paper. When I added them I was unsure of their verifiability, but did so on the basis of showing how the general public viewed the criticism. Belcanti has (quite rightly) pointed out that these are very opinionated. I added them though really to show how music/opera fans viewed that criticism. Now I'm not sure whether they fall within the bounds of what is acceptable or not on wikipedia and wondered what you think? Thanks. ♦Tangerines♦· Talk 22:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Here's an idea. Don't call the section "Criticism". Call it "Recepeption". And in the section, include a sampling of positive and negative reviews of his work. That is more neutral. Also, letters to the paper aren't exactly reliable in the sense that they aren't written by respected music critics. The public reception is best gauged by album sales; they wouldn't buy it if they didn't like it. I would stick to music critic responses, and I would neutralize the section by changing the focus to be about critical reception by respected music journalists both positive and negative. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 02:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I could stop right now, but he's clearly forum shopping in the hope that he'll find an admin who'll do something. Best way to make it go away? As I said on ANI, close the AfD per WP:SNOW. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 04:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes it stops. Trust the admins. We aren't foolish. No one is going to act on this... If you both continue down the road you are traveling, you both risk being blocked for disruption. If either of you stops now, then the one who stops will not be blocked. If you both stop, no one gets blocked. Capesce? -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 05:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

And stop forum shopping. Lara ❤ Love 05:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

"Capesce"? (Sorry mate, I had to laugh, I haven't seen or heard that one used in a while, made me think of Jack Sparrow, saying "Savvy?") Edit Centric ( talk) 05:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

"Trust the admins. We aren't foolish." - thanks, I needed a good laugh. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 06:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Alot of the articles you've failed to deleted seem very strange to me , but i don't really know the process so i've asked for a review Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Denial_of_speedy.27s_by_User:Jayron32 Gnevin ( talk) 08:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You might like to partcipate in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports, given your creation of the Tom Jennings and Dick Lane articles. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

There's probably another way to do it, but the quickest way I've lifted autoblocks is to go into Special:Ipblocklist, search for the account blocked (the IP that the blocked account used will be listed, but only as a series of numbers so the IP isn't revealed, see here), and unblock the IP. Unblocked IPs and accounts are not listed in there. Acalamari 19:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

See, I did that (look at the links I provided) and I didn't see ANY blocks listed on the IPblocklist... Weird... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 19:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

That's because the user himself was unblocked, but the IP was still blocked. You had unblocked DarkFierceDeityLink‎, and so they weren't in the blocked list, but their IP was still blocked, and was still listed there. To search for the IP, the best thing to do would have been to use your browser's search feature to search for the text of a username. I found DarkFierceDeityLink‎'s IP by increasing the block list to 500 and searching for DarkFierceDeityLink‎ username using my browser. As DarkFierceDeityLink and their IP are no longer blocked, they will no longer be listed. ‎I hope that helps. Acalamari 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

It does. Thank you! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 20:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome. :) Glad to help. Acalamari 20:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You may have missed it - I have a question for you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#the final touch? - thanks. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Or I may have just not been online. Sorry, happens to the best of us... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 06:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You commented on a user I reported for vandalism. I've tried explaining the situation to this user and engaging in dialog, but I can't get a response. Is there something else you would suggest that I try besides blocking? I'd rather explain it than block this user, but I can't find a way to get a response.

• 68.2.156.53 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • block user • block log) - On Wagner tuba; vandalism after final warning. This IP address has been blocked twice for vandalism this month, once on Jan 16 and again on Jan 20.. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't look like obvious vandalism. Its not exactly useful contributions, but it looks like the user is trying to be helpful, even if misguided. This does NOT seem clear cut to me. Has anyone tried talking to the user to explain what the problem with the edits are? Templated warnings aren't really helpful in a situation like this. Has anyone tried to really talk to them? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the messages about this change that this user has previously received. I've tried explaining it several times, but I haven't been able to get a response from the user. Initially, I did do specific explanations rather than template warnings, as you can see below. Also, when I have used template warnings, I added an explanation.

• • "You edited Natural horn repeatedly to add "French" in front of horn. The consensus is to use the terminology of the International Horn Society, i.e., just horn. See the discussion from the Horn article for the explanation. You are welcome to join the discussion if you would like to make arguments for your point there. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)"
  • "Once again, you edited an article to put French in front of horn, and your edits to Paxman Musical Instruments were reverted. Also, you put links on the words "French horn" in several other articles. Links to "French horn" redirect to the primary page for the horn. When you add links, add them to the primary page rather than to a page that just redirects. If you have any questions about how to do that, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)"
  • "Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Alto horn, you will be blocked from editing. As noted here several times, the consensus is to use "horn," not French horn. Your repeated changes to add "French" will continue to be reverted every time you make them. Also, please don't link to the phrase "French horn," which redirects to Horn (instrument), especially when a link already exists earlier in the same sentence as you did in Mellophone. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)"
  • "The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Wagner tuba, you will be blocked from editing. Adding French in front of Horn is vandalism. If you want to discuss this matter, please use the talk page for the main article for the [[Horn (instrument)))."

WeisheitSuchen ( talk) 23:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• • • Looks like someone already blocked them. Yeah, looking closer, you definately did the right thing. Sorry I wasn't more help before, but they have been blocked now. For the record, since the blocking path has apparently been opened, if THAT doesn't get the user's attention, and the same problematic behavior continues, buzz me and I'll see what I can do. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 06:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks. This is the first user I've ever reported, and I'm still learning the process. I wanted to check whether there was some other path I could take. Hopefully the repeated blocks will be enough to get this user's attention. WeisheitSuchen ( talk) 15:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, looking it over, the block was probably warrented. It wasn't really vandalism per se, since that was what I was looking for, that's why I declined the block (handling AIV reports means I tend to look for certain patterns of behavior before I block; I don't always catch the "non-vandalism" reason for blocking when I work there). However, the user was clearly ignoring attempts to discuss his changes. If you make reasonable requests that a user stop making changes, they should stop and use the talk page before adding them over and over. Repeatedly ignoring pleas to work it out on talk pages can be seen as disruptive, even if not vandalism, it is still blockable... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 15:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

This user is back from his block, and back doing exactly the same disruptive edits as previously. I think the ideal solution would be to get this user to engage in dialog on the talk pages so we can understand his perspective. I'm stumped as to how to get his attention though. Therefore, I'm going to take you up on your offer to see what else can be done. Any ideas? WeisheitSuchen ( talk) 17:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

This semester I am teaching academic writing to a group of teachers at my school. This course starts on Monday Jan 28. I would like to know if you are still interesting in "mentoring". You can see the syllabus at Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/SyllabusIf so, please leave a message on my talk page and update the mentor's page Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/Mentors, if . If not, please remove your name and information from that page. Thanks! Thelmadatter ( talk) 00:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You just unblocked the page and I see you reverted an edit a user made until the dispute has been resolved. Problem is XLR8TION isn't responding to the discussion on the talk page anymore and hasn't made any contributions on Wikipedia for a week. So now what? InMySpecialPlace24 ( talk) 00:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey Jayron, a quick question for you. When copyediting, which tense is used in the article; "WAS shut down", or "IS shut down"? Edit Centric ( talk) 04:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Woo... I would personally use the past tense, but my copyediting skills are not exactly what they should be. Try the League of Copy Editors, they are very good at fixing these things. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 05:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Yahoo. Lara ❤ Love 06:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Yippee. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 06:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank You for the Smile Award on my Brokenchicken page, this will be good for Monday!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brokenchicken ( talk • contribs)

Glad to be of service. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 08:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Psst! Jayron, time to let you in on the sitch; this is a TEST. I want to see how everyone responds to the situation, and to what degree they are willing to work together to reach a consensus, even on something as trivial (yes, you are right. The entire idea is minutiae at best!) as the back cover art. In the Navy, toward the end of Basic, they have an excercise called "Battlestations", where recruits are put in a real-life situation to see how they handle it, if they're going to break, etceteras. I know it's possibly "dirty pool", but I needed to get an idea of everyone's thought processes so I could troubleshoot deeper if needed. I LOVE your input on this though! Edit Centric ( talk) 20:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Ah... Sorry about that. Just trying to be helpful... Oops... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 20:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

No! By all means, you ARE being helpful, you're providing catalyst input, a beautiful thing! Edit Centric ( talk) 20:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

AH! Well, then I am unsorry about it. Glad to be of help?-- Jayron32. talk. contribs 20:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Consider yourself "un-frelled"! (LOL!) Actually, I'm more concerned with the fire at the Monte Carlo right now, have some peeps in Vegas. But it looks like the blaze is mostly contained now, it was WEIRD watching that facade burning! Edit Centric ( talk) 20:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I added some citations to the article about St. Martin Island. The island is in Michigan not Wisconsin and the article should be saved. Thank you for helping. RFD ( talk) 21:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, it mentioned Green Bay, and the Niagara Escarpment, so I made a guess as to where it was. It was really just a shot in the dark... Good catch...-- Jayron32. talk. contribs 23:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comment- RFD ( talk) 23:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi there. I originally reported the person behind the account to Blnguyen. The first account he used was "Dariusdaman". Indeed he actually admitted to having both accounts on the talk page (Dariusisdaman), but tried to claim the first account was from a year ago and he had lost his password - despite the fact Dariusdaman was created on 15th January 2008.

So, QED to your question of evidence of sockpuppetry, though you may have already spotted that anyway. John Smith's ( talk) 00:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

O.... K.... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You should have answered in Latin. the_undertow ^talk 03:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Erm, coito ergo sum... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, yer ready for the bar. the_undertow ^talk 03:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Quod erat demonstrandum. John Smith's ( talk) 10:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Nullus excreta, Sherlock! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 19:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not torturing (excreta) you. I think you're thinking of the word "faex". John Smith's ( talk) 21:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Or this meaning of excreta... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Please see [8]. Jfire ( talk) 04:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Mr Jayron32, today I created an article about CAELinux at work when I came home, I see the the comment about "Blatant advertising", create the body of an article take time and I uploaded it to stimulate people to complement the article (actually I'm not an expert in CAELinux, even in FEA). I think CAELinux package have something to highlight in an encyclopedic article, it's a complete CAE suite opensource, you can do whole muliphysics analysis with it.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicoguaro ( talk • contribs)

Dear Jayron32. Recently you gave a Warning to user:Angelo De La Pazfor not allowing others to edit or re-add missing context in to Islam in India article. User Angelo De La Paz again is showing discrimination in article.

User was suppose to add the paragraph when Christians converted to Islam. (Christian/Muslim conflict section). in Islam in India due to Hindu politics. The Paragraph was related to Hindu/Muslim conflict. he also is again not allowing anyone to edit articles. User is abusing Authority. please inform User:Angelo De La Paz to re-add missing context from Article and proper usage of wording(because he makes the article look like a bad view) Thanks and sorry for disturbing you.-- HinduMuslim ( talk) 00:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I am not a talkative person but Jayron32, you can compare our last revisions here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Islam_in_India&action=history

HinduMuslim has deleted the part of "Muslim-Christian Conflict" without any reasons.

And here you can see his vandalism in my Talk Page too:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AAngelo_De_La_Paz&diff=186697210&oldid=186669799

And here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=186706716&oldid=186696708

Shame on you, HinduMuslim!Look at your vandalism!

And I have some witnesses who has seen your vandalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:HinduMuslim&curid=15304601&diff=186707275&oldid=186669909

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Angelo_De_La_Paz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelo De La Paz ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Angelo De La Paz ( talk) 00:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I think you had mistaken. I didn't say that I play games in WP:FUN/department of fun nor Wikipedia. Secondly, I HAVE BEEN IN WIKIPEDIA FOR ABOUT A MONTH and thirdly, I have been contributing over 100 times AND YOU SAID 17? I didn't post a RFA too and YOU DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTIONS!(The block letters is to emphasise, not to be rude nor harsh).-- Mark Chung ( talk) 06:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi there! Just wanted to drop a notice about the above user; I was helping the user on his talk page and I noticed your responses to his questions. Thanks for helping and all, but please consider being a bit more courteous; we wouldn't want to bite the newbies, and I don't think that words in all-caps are particularly nice. I appreciate your desire to help, but if you could consider being a bit gentler I would be deeply greatful. Cheers, and thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You're right. My bad... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 07:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey, it's all good. :) Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Jayron! Have you been biting the newbies again? You know, 4 out of 5 dentists surveyed think that's bad for your teeth! (LOL) 30 lashes with a wet noodle for you, mate! Edit Centric ( talk) 07:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

But they taste SO GOOD... Yum... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 07:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Might I suggest Altoids instead? They're easier on the teeth, and better for the breath... (No, I'm NOT saying you have halitosis...) Edit Centric ( talk) 07:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

RFC has been tried. But he's the only one that has had a problem with the addition of those names on the list. So if he's not there to argue his point then there's really no where to go. He stopped commenting on the discussion as soon as the page was blocked. InMySpecialPlace24 ( talk) 02:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Can you explain what exactly you meant by "protracted edit war on Indophobia", why exactly did you block me, did you actually go through the edits. And can you reply to the concerns I raised here.

Thanks

Pahari Sahib ( talk) 17:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello

In light of what you just said, namely "The issue was the series of reverts and un-reverts that occured between 09:15 22-Jan-2008 (UTC) and 05:59 26-Jan-2008." However bearing in mind this edit I added a source on 21:07, 23 January as per talk, I did one revert after that and believe it or not I was going seek outside assistance if GG reverted my edits, which he did, but I was robbed of the opportunity. Looking at the talk page, I have clearly noted what I disagreed with, I have was contacted by an aggrieved editor, but as per talk advised him we needed sources.

In response to the statement that "The issue was that the same edits were being made over and over without any regard for achieving consensus or seeking outside help." I would say this, I was not trying to revert to the same edit over and over again - I was responsive to the talk page, my second from last edit was made directly to address. Personally I think all that Martial races stuff from earlier on was a synthesis, but I let it pass.

Anyway to reiterate I would not have kept going in loop, endlessly reverting - I was actually going to let the edit stand and mark as pov, I feel that you have prejudged me based on the past behaviour of other editors - and the fact that the article has seen a lot of activity. But the thing that bugs me was that I was not informed that Wiki considers grounds for a banning, I've heard of 3RR, but not whatever you did then - surely as an editor who has never had any warnings or anything, shouldn't the onus be on you to let me know. I mean this sincerely, because the ban came like a bolt out of the blue and to be frank I was a little pissed off, especially I am not one for arguments - and did not consider this to be edit warring (was I only blocked because GG undid my edit?, if he hadn't would I have still been blocked?)

But anyway, now I've got all that off my chest, and my annoyance has finally subsided :-), I can say on the plus side at least I know how things work (errm sort of), it still would have been nice to have told me this beforehand!

Anyway it transpires that Ghanadar galpa was a sock of a serial mischief maker and has been banned. I am going to make a few points on the talk page, not quite yet, but would like it if you would review it - and if you deem it acceptable, then I (or someone else) will make the changes without me getting banned again :-)

Deal?

Regards Pahari Sahib ( talk) 03:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Blocked

--[[User:Censing|Censing]. talk. contribs 17:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

There are no warnings due to your persistant vandalism. You may contest the block if you feel it is necessary.

Lol. Are you going to leave that there as a trophy, or should I delete it? :P · AndonicO ^Hail! 20:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Awesome. My talk page has been vandalised. Kewl Beans!!! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry for accusing you before. I didn't know that you are talking about mainspace edits only. Next, i think I didn't ask properly about summaries and caused misunderstanding about RFA. Also, I said NEARLY A MONTH, didn't I? I'm sorry for everything and could you please forgive me?-- Mark Chung ( talk) 02:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Dude, chill... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I gotta say, Image:Size of English Wikipedia broken down.png is the funniest thing I've seen on wikipedia.

But when I think more about it, it sadly has a grain of truth in it. Bless sins ( talk) 05:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm thinking of nominating myself for adminship. Would you like to write me a co-nomination? I hope you say yes. By the way, I've been participating in speedy deleting new pages now. I believe I got over 100 to 200 pages deleted. — Cuyler 91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 06:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

One small question... what is administrator recall? — Cuyler 91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 06:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, that doesn't sound good. I wonder why people ask for people's opinions on it... — Cuyler 91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 08:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I know this doesn't sound good, but I've only been doing CSD for a few days (although working really hard on it). AfD's been somewhat sporadic, here and there. I've tried fighting vandalism, but I can't get to seem VandalProof working. :( I think I'll post at the Village Pump right now and get some more information about it. — Cuyler 91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 08:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Although, I've been getting compliments for my admitting of errors. Does that count? — Cuyler 91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 08:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Why is the village pump protected? It says I can only view the source. — Cuyler 91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 08:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

A thread relating to an admin action of yours has been started here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bad_faith_speedy_deletion_and_general_behavior_of_an_editor MBisanz ^talk 08:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey Jayron, I'm willing to draw a line under all that stuff, we discussed earlier on, but one question remains, looking at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hkelkar, it seems that Ghanadar galpa was on the list from last year, why was he allowed to edit until yesterday? I just want an understanding of how you guys operate that is all.

Thanks :-)

Pahari Sahib ( talk) 15:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Jayron, regarding your apology, just want to say thanks and no hard feelings :-) The page history is a bit of a mess, everyone is human - you don't know me, so I can now see how this mistake happended.

Regards
Pahari Sahib 19:22, 28 January 2008 ( GMT)

Ok, So I started this whole quest to have Airmen's Cave created as a wikipedia article the wrong way. I am leaving this message on all 3 admins who graciously pointed out my previous errors in my origional 3 creations and I would like to state my case to have this article re-instated.

1st regarding the blatant copyrite infringement. I have rewritten the article in complete to remove the copyrite problems, and even the paraphrasing I attempted in my second attempt at the article. All of the text in the current version of the article is my own, with facts pulled from relevant sources.

2nd My article was deleted based on Wikipedia:CSD#A7 which to my understanding is a policy there to prevent trivial articles. I would like to cite the following 2 sources to both prove via what I think qualify as credible sources that my article is both not trivial and that the information contained within is citable.

[9] - is a news story from dailytexanonline about 3 students who were lost in Airmen's cave and rescued by the local firefighters. This story was carried by multiple other news sources ( CNN CBS

My second source to cite information about the cave is from [The World Caves Database http://www-sop.inria.fr/agos-sophia/sis/DB/database.html]. If you scroll down to the United States on [this list http://www-sop.inria.fr/agos-sophia/sis/DB/countries.html] from their site you will see Airmen's Cave listed, with information including it's total length.

3rd My original retype of the article included information from the personal web site of Michael Wescott Loder who is accepted as one of the caves original explorers and did significant work mapping the cave. This information sadly, is not citable yet since I have not been able to find credible coverage to back up the information presented on his web site. The current write up of the Airmen's Cave article I would like to implement will not include information from this source until I find a credible and scholarly way to cite it as accurate. I would like to link 2 sites here, which are people's personal sites that though not citable, do backup in greater detail much of the information I've put forth here. I believe these to might qualify for being added as external links to allow readers to navigate to the pages and read and decide for themselves.

[Michael Wescott Loder's personal page regarding the cave http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/m/w/mwl2/Airmen's_Cave.html

[Enthusiast's page with a collection of information about Airmen's Cave http://www.io.com/~iareth/airmens.html

Lacitpo ( talk) 04:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I have created a portal called Portal:Animal and I am lacking of experience to edit it. Could somebody help me to improve it?-- Mark Chung ( talk) 14:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm going to flunk that portion of the SATs. I've spent like three hours this morning studying my SAT book, the math section. I don't get it. I remember that I used to get it, but I've forgotten because, just as I suspected then, I've never had a real world need for such knowledge. And I doubt I ever will. How much will you charge to dress up like me and take the SATs? If Maynard can pull off a wig and nail polish you can, too... right? Lara ❤ Love 18:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey, do you have something in mind? Would you like more information? I'd be happy to provide you with some. — Cuyler 91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 00:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You just had an unsuccessful RFA two weeks ago. You won't succeed with less than three months between nominations. Lara ❤ Love 17:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Fair enough, I agree. Okay, I'll just leave it as is, and I'll put it on the RfA page when I get a reputation on those parts. Thanks for your advice. I'm glad that I have come across you in the image tagging process. — Cuyler 91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 18:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm at a loss as to how to deal with 68.2.156.53's disruptive edits. He's been blocked 3 times previously. Each time the block has been lifted, he's been back making the same changes again. I've tried repeatedly to get him to discuss on the talk pages (see #40 "Unresponsive User" above where we discussed this before). You correctly observed that his edits are really disruptive rather than technically vandalism. The blocks don't seem to be getting his attention, but you said you might be able to do something else. So, I'd like to take you up on your offer to see what else can be done. Any ideas or help would be greatly appreciated. WeisheitSuchen ( talk) 01:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually, I am about to give up on him. That he refuses to use the talk page at all, or even read his own talk page, shows me a complete reticence to work with others. Intentional disruption and willful ignorance of others is just as blockable as blind vandalism. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 05:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Good block here, man. :) How are you liking your new mop? Glass Cobra 06:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC) reply

That one took me about 30 seconds too. I like to strike hard and fast like that. Hoo-ha... Love the new mop, BTW. Well balanced, nice action... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 06:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm glad you guys are looking out for me. Since I have you two BRC types about, you should check out the meetup page. I dropped you guys a line there. Thanks again for the revert/semiprot, Jayron. Caknuck ( talk) 07:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, even Doc Brown can't help me... Unless he can come up with some serious cash and a good baby sitter with references and a background check... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 07:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC) reply

You blanked this user page. I'd ask you to reconsider. This user has been disruptive and most abusive. I'm pretty sure that he was a sock-puppeteer a couple of years ago until he settled on this persona. The other personas were User:Haqiqat101 & User:Curandero101. All three edited almost exclusively on two articles, and these edits consisting of planting the {{NPOV}} tag on them and flaming the regulars on the talk pages.

He's taken two blocks for personal attacks and edit warring, and I'm about to report him for more more of the same. If memory serves, several of the items up there on his user page were related to his conduct and, I believe, are supposed to be posted there. If there were warnings, then shouldn't these should go to his talk page? MARussellPESE ( talk) 01:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, because the user page was blanked I can't access its history. I'm not an admin. There were more warnings than my suspected sockpuppet tag. If memory serves, there was a warning about edit warring on Ayahuasca. I don't think these should be on his user page, but I'd like the Ayahuasca thing to not get lost. This has been a persistently problematic user, but if you think his, now, three blocks are evidence enough of this then I'm cool. Ciao, MARussellPESE ( talk) 18:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello Jayron32, the user returned with his usual behaviour; removing some material from Maitreya, and putting the a {{ POV}} tag on Subh-i-Azal without giving any specific reasons, or trying to improve the page. When a third-party editor asked him to work within Wikipedia policies, he noted "I am not remotely interested in working within the wikipedia system unhless this system was more interested in truth" [10]. What do you recommend should be done? Regards, -- Jeff3000 ( talk) 16:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash ( talk) 05:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 4 - February 2008 January issue | March issue Project News There are now 3,485 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 206 unreviewed articles. Out of 251 total nominations, 37 are on hold, 7 are under review, and 1 is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Johan Derksen, Trafford, J. Michael Bailey, Greg Skrepenak, Paleolithic-style diet, Alan Dershowitz, Natalee Holloway, Slovenian presidential election, 2007, San Francisco Municipal Railway, and Marcela Agoncillo. The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (57 articles), Theatre film and drama (34 articles), Music (19 articles), Transport (17 articles), Politics and government (16 articles), World history (13 articles), and Meteorology and atmospheric sciences (13 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 8 articles up for re-review. If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated! GA Sweeps Update During January, 57 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 35 were kept as GA, 20 delisted, 9 currently on hold or at GAR, and 3 were exempted as they are now Featured Articles. Reviewer of the Month Ealdgyth is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for January, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Ealdgyth, known in real life as Victoria Short, hails from Central Illinois, and has been editing Wikipedia since May 26, 2007. In this short time, she has made significant contributions to 9 Good Articles, including Baldwin of Exeter and Hubert Walter. Her interests in editing are in the areas of the Middle Ages, History, and horses. Outside of Wikipedia, she is starting her own photography business, and owns three horses. She likes to read science fiction, history, and geneology books. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for January! Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include: AnonEMouse ( talk · contribs) Canadian Paul ( talk · contribs) Casliber ( talk · contribs) Derek.cashman ( talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide ( talk · contribs) Drewcifer3000 ( talk · contribs) Jackyd101 ( talk · contribs) Johnfos ( talk · contribs) M3tal H3ad ( talk · contribs) Miranda ( talk · contribs) Nehrams2020 ( talk · contribs) VanTucky ( talk · contribs) Member News There are now 176 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 15 new members that joined during the month of January: Atlantik ( talk · contribs) Auawise ( talk · contribs) Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide ( talk · contribs) Ddstretch ( talk · contribs) Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs) FamicomJL ( talk · contribs) Hamiltonstone ( talk · contribs) jackturner3 ( talk · contribs) Kbthompson ( talk · contribs) Keilana ( talk · contribs) Miranda ( talk · contribs) pcbene ( talk · contribs) Skeeker ( talk · contribs) Snowolf ( talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! On Hold versus Failing an Article This month, I thought I'd focus on a less technical and more of a procedural issue at WP:GAN – determining what the appropriate course of action to take when reviewing an article. Currently, there are four options to decide what to do with an article: Passing – it meets all six of the good article criteria; add it to WP:GA and add {{ ArticleHistory}} or {{ GA}} to the article's talk page. Failing it – it does not meet the criteria; remove the article's listing from WP:GAN and add {{ ArticleHistory}} or {{ failedGA}} to the article's talk page. On Hold – The article meets most of the criteria, but might fall short in a few areas; keep it listed at WP:GAN, add #: {{GAOnHold|ArticleName}} ~~~~ below the listing and add {{GAonhold}} to the article's talk page. Second Opinion – Similar to the on hold option, except an editor is either inexperienced or not knowledgeable enough about a given topic and asks another reviewer to offer another opinion before passing or failing; add #: {{GA2ndopinion|ArticleName}} ~~~~ to WP:GAN below the article's listing and add {{GA2ndoptalk}} to the article's talk page. So how to you know when an article fails outright, or fails initially, but meets "enough" of the criteria to be placed on hold? The answer to this question probably varies by about the same amount as there are reviewers of Good Articles! Everybody treats this slightly differently. The most important thing to consider is that articles should not be on hold for longer than about one week. Although there is no hard and fast time limit for this, most editors would probably agree that five to seven days is enough time to address any GA-related issues with the article to get it to pass. Some editors have extended this a few days in the past, due to other extenuating circumstances, such as an article's primary editor being very busy with school or work, so they have asked for extra time. But as a general rule, a GA nominee that is placed on hold should meet enough of the criteria to be able to be passed within five to seven days. Some examples of articles that might be placed on hold would be: the article is mostly complete, but might be missing one topic (subcategory). minor copyediting is required (needs a few minor manual of style, spelling, or grammatical fixes. mostly well sourced, but missing maybe a handful of references. a couple of images need to be tagged with appropriate copyright tags. On the other hand, an article should be failed if it: is missing several topic categories, or there are several sections which are very short (1-3 sentences per section). contains numerous sections which are just lists of information, as opposed to written out as prose. there's entire sections of text that have no references, or there are a lot of {{ cn}} or {{ unreferenced}} tags. has evidence of an active edit war in the article history. has major neutrality issues. has any {{ cleanup}} or other warning tags in various places. Did You Know... ... that on July 19, 2007, 1,548 good articles that have not been categorized at all were categorized in 15 days? ... that in Chinese Wikipedia, articles need to have at least six net support votes before they are promoted to GA? ... that the English Wikipedia has the most Good Articles, the German Wikipedia has the second most (at over 2000), followed by the Spanish Wikipedia (at over 800), the Chinese Wikipedia (at over 400), and the French Wikipedia (at over 200)? ... that Simple English Wikipedia has zero Good Articles? ... that "Sport and games people" category has the most Good Articles? ... that Virginia Tech massacre (which is now a featured article) was promoted to GA just only about one month after the shooting incident, but took more than seven months to reach FA status? From the Editors Originally, I wasn't planning to do "Did you know" other than as a fill-in for Dr. Cash. However, I decided to continue writing this section until I ran out of ideas. OhanaUnited Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Dr. Cash Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Madame X (album) ( talk | history | start review) • Gedling Town F.C. ( talk | history | start review) • Reggie Barnes (skateboarder) ( talk | history | start review) • Exile (American band) ( talk | history | start review) • Jude Law ( talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Louie Caporusso • Northallerton • Patrick Omameh • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013) Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list |

Aggie Bonfire leadership is the second AfD Cumulus Cloud has submitted (in which I have been involved) that was rejected. I am concerned with his attitude and would like your feedback regarding his edits, most recently on the Kyle Field talk page. He has made numerous misquoted, misleading, hostile, and threatening statements, to try and get his way. He has carried this "technique" over to almost every major page I have touched. No end is in sight.

That said, I realize I am in the heat of the dispute and it is possible I am missing something, so a third party opinion would be appreciated. As an admin I respect (though someone with whom I don't always agree), your opinion would be appreciated You can respond on the talk page or on my user page, whichever you feel is appropriate. I do NOT intend this as an attack of any kind on CC, merely an attempt to get feedback/guidance and see if I am missing something. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 05:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Are you kidding me? Collectonian made the request not me, and I simply commented on the page stating very explicitly that I didn't want anybody to confuse my intentions there. What are you trying to do here? Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 08:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

CC is right about who submitted it; I stand corrected. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 03:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Either you type very fast or that was a canned response (pretty good one by the way). This is already in an RfC, but with only two limited responses after 2+ weeks. Any suggestions on how to get more responses? Thanks — BQZip01 —  ^talk 05:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Good advice. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 05:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, after reviewing the case I have granted the unblock to User talk:Spentsuch. I decided he warrants a second chance and will keep an eye on him. As a technical question, and as I'm a freshly minted admin, I am not sure of the protocol and templates for unblocking messaging. I did the unblock and posted a message on his talk page w/o any template. If that is not the proper way, please correct the messaging or tell me and I'll do it. I did look at the blocking and block appeal pages and did not find a proper syntax. Happy wiking! -- Alexf ⁴² 11:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Never mind. Did it properly now. -- Alexf ⁴² 13:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, there seems to be an edit war going on with the United Kingdom article. A certain POV keeps getting added and deleted. Would you take a look please? Mjroots ( talk) 14:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Both users have been warned. If they continue to revert each other, BOTH may be blocked for 3RR. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 14:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I have taken the discussion to the talk page; it is the users who are reverting my edits that have refused to try to build consesus there before reverting edits, despite being invited to on several occasions, both by myself, other users and an admin. I have now reported the matter as a 3RR violation as three users appear to be "teaming up" to replace the POV statement. Dan1980 ( talk | stalk) 14:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

With all due respect, I have discussed this extensively at the talk page, for about two weeks already. Unfortunately, there are a number of English editors who consistently delete material they don't agree with even if is sourced, stalk users who dare to question their glorification of the UK and attack those users over whatever they can come up with, including other users' nationality and/or supposed political belonging. In my opinion, you can find few better sourced on the UK economy than the Financial Times, the source these users keep deleting all the time. JdeJ ( talk) 16:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Response to both Dan1980 AND JdeJ:

Do not defend a particular version of the article to me and then attempt to reinstate it. Instead, use the methods described at Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution such as a request for comment or a Request for Third Opinion. Neither of you appear to be taking any moral high ground on this issue, and should seek uninvolved editors to give a neutral opinion on the matter. This should be done with the current version of the page in place, even though it is the wrong version. This is not an endorsement of EITHER position in the matter, but rather a statement that the current practice of repeatedly reverting each other must be stopped. This should be done REGARDLESS of who is "right". Being "right" does not give you the privilege of acting poorly. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 16:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

This definitely made me smile! gb ^{( t, c)} 17:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

If you can't laugh, sometimes you'd just cry... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey Jayron, I reformatted your close for the AfD that you recently closed. The ---{{subst:at}} '''RESULT'''~~~~--- template goes above everything (not just in place of the afd template). Look at this diff to see what I mean. You may already know this, but I just learnt it myself, so, you know, Pay It Forward:-) Cheers, Keeper | 76 17:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for cleaning that up! Sometimes the mop slips, you know? -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

And sometimes we purposely don't put up a Slippery When Wet sign, just to see what happens. Heh heh. No, we wouldn't do that, would we? ;) Keeper | 76 17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Who, me??? -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, be-have. That made me Laugh Out Loud. Keeper | 76 17:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Congradulations (a bit late) on getting History of American Football featured. I didn't vote, but I saw that you did a lot of work. Cheers, Basketball one 10 01:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Just want to give my congrats as well, and was wondering if you could review a recent college football FAC I've put up -- I've had a lot of trouble getting people to review it, and I'd greatly appreciate any help you could give. Thanks. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 06:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply

hi jayron32, you gave me advice on my article, i added the refrences i used, so could you take a look at it and tell me if it's alright?... or what else needs to be fixed?.. thanks... also i had another question... if this is a magazine, does it need to be called POPJNEO(magazine)? thanks for your time. -- W2fphoenix ( talk) 09:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The February 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 22:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I was just over at your wikiproject and I noticed a couple things that you could do to improve your article. I noticed that there are a few other football wikiprojects floatiog around and I think that you guys should consolodate for ease of reasearch. I found that your wikiproject was very confusing to someone who was doing reasearch on football for and knew nothing about it. Like me... I would appriciate if you left a message to me about these ideas. I also post disscussion topics on my talk page and would love it if you would discuss these with me on my talk page! Historybuffc13 ( talk) 23:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply

i dont know what happend to my edit from last night... i had other refrences... i changed it again... for any reason does it resort back to it's original text after you push save?... anyways, i canged it again.. hopefully it will stay this time can you check it again, sorry for the inconvience.-- W2fphoenix ( talk) 07:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for blatting that vandal. Astral ( talk) 08:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

By all means - my concern, and the reason for the block, was that the user did not discuss his concerns before re-adding the material, ignoring the warnings that had been posted. That's also why the duration was deliberately lower than the typical 24 hours. No problem with the unblock. Should I proceed and unblock, or should you do so, as the unblock reviewing admin? Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Not a problem. Thank you, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I notice you are listed as a peer review volunteer and have listed 19th century American history among your interests. I would appreciate your comments on two articles on which I have worked significantly: Solomon P. Sharp and Richard Mentor Johnson. Thank you. Acdixon ^{( talk • contribs • count)} 18:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for unprotecting those pages!! -- Solumeiras ( talk) 18:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry. That IP seemed to be on quite a tear and ignored too many warnings for me to let it go so I zapped him. You can undo if you want. — Wknight94 ( talk) 18:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Meh.... Whatev.... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 18:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Ioeth _{( talk contribs friendly)} 19:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You speedy deleted the article Brandon Locher which was listed at AFD. Can you please close the AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Locher? And also can you delete the talk page Talk:Brandon Locher that should be deleted with the main article? Thanks. Deli nk ( talk) 19:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Haha. The afd template was added after I last looked at the article but before I hit the delete button, sometime during that 60 second span. Thus the confusion. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 19:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually, I'm sure I added the template hours before, but it doesn't matter. Thanks for taking care of it! Deli nk ( talk) 20:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Whatever. No harm no foul... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 20:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You mentioned something on the FAC page about knowing a few copyeditors who'd be willing to take a look at this article... JKBrooks85 ( talk) 00:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Go ahead and list it on the LOCE page. I have also buzzed a few people for some help. I'll let you know what they say... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 01:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I've thrown it on there. The main reason I haven't done this earlier is because there's such a large backlog at LoCE that it's practically useless (at least in my past experience ... it may have changed) in terms of getting a rapid response. That's through no fault of the membership, just a problem with the number of articles that need help. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 05:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

True. For the record, I am still waiting on some responses... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 05:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I talked to someone as well, and judging from the small dis change he did, he's at least taken a cursory glance at it. Hopefully we can get at least a little more input on that. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 09:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Any luck? JKBrooks85 ( talk) 22:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Dude, sorry, they all backed out, claim to be too busy in "real life". What's this "real life" thing anyways. Erg. Sorry I couldn't be any more help specifically. Unfortunately, all I have left is LOCE, so I guess we're gonna have to just wait in line. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, I'll just keep bugging Blnguyen for a review and see if anything results from it. I've made the other changes you suggested ... I hate having to wait for someone. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 05:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Okay. Blnguyen's made some requests that I need to fix, and it looks as if Karanacs is doing some copyediting of his own, so I'll drop you a note when they're all done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JKBrooks85 ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Okay. Can you re-review the article now? Someone's gone through and trimmed the prose, and I've corrected the things that Blnguyen suggested. Thanks. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 00:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I thought about saying something, but thought better about it hoping someone else would do so. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 03:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree it can be kept elsewhere, but not in the same editable form. It will be more difficult to edit/preview. Furthermore, the WP:TALK guideline explicitly allows this and the talk page shows this is the exact type of page they were talking about when they came to consensus on it. I'm truly sorry if some people don't like it, but that is a discussion that should be moved to the guideline page, not deleting my page based on vague and unbacked accusations as to what I will or won't do with the information. I'm not the kind of guy who wants harmony for the sake of harmony, but I will certainly deal in my actions with civility. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 03:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Eh... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 04:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

first id like to start by thanking you for the welcome and the help. im pretty sure i got it right this time, if not please let me know so i can correct it. i was wondering i made another article about a band and that got deleted to, any idea as to why? HANDSOME RUDY ( talk) 04:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

i should read over those things carefully? ok will do, but what about the user page? Is that one out of line? or am i on targetish? HANDSOME RUDY ( talk) 04:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

ok than you u were very helpful, and im pretty sure youll be hearing from me again haha. HANDSOME RUDY ( talk) 04:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

[11] That's just mean. Pairadox ( talk) 04:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, come on. You laughed at it! Admit it! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 04:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

LOL Never! Pairadox ( talk) 04:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello again, Jayron32 ... would you please take a look at this AfD? I think that it should be Speedy closed as a CSD G7 ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 ( talk · contribs) _{06:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)} reply

Thanks for you intercedence. I'd like to call upon your expertise going forward, so as not to cause any other problems. Bilbobag ( talk) 11:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I have also added to the article you started, and have asked the other poster for his opinions on the following proposed addition. I'd also like your comments. please.

To many “Grovers”, the destruction of the Ocean Grove Fishing Pier and boardwalk by the northeast winter storm of 1992, was devastating (Footnote to be added referencing A POINT OF PRIDE SWEPT OFF BY STORM - OCEAN GROVE LOST MORE THAN TIMBER. THE PIER WAS PART OF ITS LIFE. Source: William R. Macklin, Published December 14, 1992, Page S01, Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA)) With the town's spirits at an all time low, late one night two friends, Carol and Bob, climbed a 20' high piling and erected a dummy of a fisherman. Named "Ralph", an acronym for Rising Above the Long Pier of Hope, he immediately became a local favorite as he smiled down at beachgoers, and helped buoy the town’s spirits. This was demonstrated later that summer, when his image was used on T-Shirts by The Ocean Grove Fishing Club to help raise funds to rebuild the town’s century old, landmark, fishing pier (photo of t-shirt to be included). When the pier was rebuilt the following year, Ralph was given a permanent perch upon which to sit...and to this day he can be seen sitting there (photo). As an indication of his inspiration and popularity, in 2002, ten years after he was erected, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association honored Ralph by making him the first fictional character to ever appear on the town’s summer beach badge.

I knew you'd come up with a better endorse.... It's probably a better explanation of the opinion I have. Regards, Rudget . 17:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Just FYI - its not terribly important, but prior to your partial support of my statement Alison actually withdrew support for her own suggestion. I only point it out because you mentioned 'endorsed by Alison.' ^{Avruch talk} 18:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Regardless if she still supports it or not, she came up with it, and I still support it... Even if semantically incorrect, my intentions are clear. I think a mentorship program is a good idea. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 18:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Aye aye, understandable. ^{Avruch talk} 18:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd not advocate an unblock. He broke 3RR and was quite nasty in some talk comments. Personally, I think that a 48-hour block is on the lower end of what I could've issued, you could take it to ANI if you want, I'd be happy with more input. Thanks for contacting me. Keilana| ^{Parlez ici} 22:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Ah, glad to see you're getting the hang of it. Cheers, Keilana| ^{Parlez ici} 03:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Yep, sounds good. You're doing quite well! :) Keilana| ^{Parlez ici} 03:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I always do well, thank you very much... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You may want to fix the archived section, as you also closed all the threads below the thread you closed. — B o L 04:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Oops. Typos happen. Sorry. Looks like someone else got it... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 04:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I think you need to see this rampage of User talk:208.120.82.157. The user seems better not to edit Wikipedia because she did the same thing at Korean Wikipedia, so has been blocked for 2 weeks. ko:Special:Contributions/이왕 딸 [12] I don't know her claim is right but there is no such publication or news on that. -- Appletrees ( talk) 15:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron, Less than a month ago my boss asked if I could edit our article on MapEasy. A previous employee had made an account which I didn't have access to so, I made a new account named MapEasy, not knowing that much about wikipedia, which later realized was the wrong thing to do. I was also just adding to the article which I did not originally write and was up for some time. I understand why the part I edited was erased but why was the original article that was there for quite some time erased? We are a well known travel publishing company with best selling products and have many notable sources that we can cite. Can someone help me get the original article up or write an appropriate article that will not get erased? And if so, who should I speak to about this? All of the other leading travel companies have articles up. I am really sorry for the inconvenience. I never meant any harm when putting my article up, just adding to it like my boss had asked. If he finds out it has been deleted he will freak on me. Please help!!! CourtMTK ( talk) 21:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Don't take it too personally - it's just that so many admins are being too soft with blocks and allowing people too many chances - I mean, given that his username is a 4chan meme, and he trolled for ED a few hours ago, that should raise major alarm bells. You're supposed to send him to bed without his dinner, not take away his second topping on dessert. See also WP:IDIOT, which I've created because of this and the whole Adult-child sex debacle of the week. Will ^{( talk)} 22:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm participating in New pages more. Do you think I will be ready soon for RfA? Perhaps I should study some more. Hmm... did you sign my guestbook yet? I hope you do! See ya later! — Cuyler 91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 08:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

He also edits as CJKC ( talk · contribs). You might keep an eye on him. Thanks. Ward3001 ( talk) 18:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

See also my comment at Talk:Civil Recovery Demands (Shoplifting). Carol J seems to be on a vendetta of some kind going back to 2006. LeadSongDog ( talk) 21:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, see, I was just picking off some quick ones at AIV. I don't really care all that much. Sorry. Good luck wity all of that, though! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the respite anyway. LeadSongDog ( talk) 05:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Please look at this user page. It it in order for an editor to blank this, or does this come under "wikipedia is not censored" ? Mjroots ( talk) 20:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm glad you and others saw thru all the gaming (including misleading edit summary text) and blocked an editor on the acupuncture page. MeekMark ( talk) 03:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I contest the prod. My knowledge of the society is only peripheral - I dabble in the same general field in the same general area - but it's the oldest and largest one in the country, is likely behind the higly significant Finncon, publishes a non-trivial magazine and grants awards. This is not a basement hobbyists' group, it has a library of four and a half thousand books and magazines. Secondary sources exist... somewhere.

This is, I argue, something that should be retained for its cultural significance alone. WP:N, being a guideline, maintains that absence of proof for its requirements does not equal proof of abscence of noteworthiness. If you do not relent, then I ask that you do not jump to AfD straight away. It would take me longer than an AfD lasts to research the matter and hunt for sources, plus I did NOT need more #¤%& work right now. -- Kiz o r 07:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh hey, here's another thing! If you (for some ungodly reason) need the local knowledge of a Finn in the future to edit articles, ascertain the notability of a subject, provide context or somesuch, feel free to ask me. Mind, there's a significant chance that I'll answer that I do NOT need more #¤%& work at that moment, but I also know how to delegate to bug people. [Appropriate emoticon] -- Kiz o r 07:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't really need the knowledge of a Finn... just reliable sources... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The "random" change was made because the Alabama/Tennessee rivalry seemed to be chosen subjectively and at random. The oldest rivalry in the region was more appropriate in that context. Failureofafriend ( talk) 04:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Ah. good one. So noted and fixed... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 04:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

did they delete my user page? HANDSOME RUDY ( talk) 09:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi! Please join us here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lianga13#Bingo.21

Thank so much!

Angelo De La Paz ( talk) 12:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello, I put the following issue on ANI but got no apparent admin response. "Editors claim that repeatedly misrepresenting a source is OK" seems to be so unthinkable that admins to date misunderstand the simplicity of this case. (At least to my eyes)

If you don't find interest in looking at this please suggest specifically where I should go. I dont know if this issue has just fallen through the net or if WP operates in ways that I can't concieve of.

This is not a content dispute. Nor is it a dispute over reliability of source. My concern instead is that the behavior, that Prester John and Skyring/Pete promoted durring this discussion, makes working collaboratively a futile exercise: Accurate representations of sources is presented as unnecessary and, in addition, correcting, discussing, recorrecting and then finally lodging an ANI is presented as "disruptive" and "unnecessary".

---

(re-edited from ANI version)

In article David Hicks /Religious and militant activities/Afghanistan a source lists allegations against David Hicks. (article: US charges David Hicks)

Prester John has repeatedly edited to present the allegations as facts/admissions. He has been told that this is not acceptable. This problem has been discussed here on the article talkpage with PresterJohn and Skyring/Pete and also on archived User_talk:Prester_John#David_Hicks allegations.

Misrepresenting edits

Revision as of 00:43, 3 February 2008

Revision as of 01:59, 13 January 2008

Revision as of 00:10, 12 January 2008

The same edits have also been performed by IP

Revision as of 03:10, 1 February 2008 by 124.180.162.217

PresterJohn had been blocked for 1 month starting 09:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC) by Save_Us_229 according to page Talk to the Hand. The first of the misrepresentation of sources began 12 January 2008.(ANI report lodged 02:17, 3 February 2008)

I am also open to feedback over what I could have done better/differently. Thanks for your time. SmithBlue ( talk) 01:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm a little confused on how Darqside's edits are not vandalism. It seems to me that he is goofing around and purposely disrupting Wikipedia by making up fanciful stories which are amusing but completely bogus. Specifically here, this spot, and over yonder. This is not "poo" vandalism but it is just as disruptive (in fact, it is more disruptive since it takes measurably longer to sniff it out). Cheers, — Noah 06:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

OK... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 06:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your efforts keeping the vandals and mischief-makers at bay I award you this barnstar. (jarbarf) ( talk) 07:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

THANKS! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 07:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I have been working on the Nahuatl article that you delisted form GA status awhile back. I think it is much improved and would like to hear your comments before trying to get it renominated.I hope you have a little time to spare for this. Thanks beforehand. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I will take a look at it! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 14:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the prompt response. :) ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I read your post on WP:RPP. Think you can watchlist it with me or should I let you know if the puppetry continues? Please reply below. Thanks, Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 18:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I have watchlisted it. I will use rollbacks/reversions and blocks until such time as it becomes unmanagable. It does not appear to yet, but I will keep an eye on it as well.-- Jayron32. talk. contribs 18:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks you. I am most grateful for your help. Regards, Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 18:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron, Thanks for the advice on creating a new article. I have put up a draft on my userpage and created a subpage. The link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CourtMTK/MapEasy. Please let me know if you have any suggestions. I was unsure where to add the quotes, so I kind of just stuck them in there. Also, I was looking at other publishing companies articles and some are stub articles. Is that something I should do? Thanks again for helping me. CourtMTK ( talk) 19:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello. Sorry about that I have warned the user now and the article has been speedy deleted -- Capitana ( talk) 21:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, don't forget to be nice to the noobs. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 21:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the reply on my talk. Good advice -- Capitana ( talk) 21:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you so much for helping me. The article looks great! The one link that you said was dead seems to be working for me. Do you think we could add it back in ( http://europeforvisitors.com/europe/spymaps/bl_spy_venice.htm) and maybe balance the negative comment at the end with something positive written by the same woman about our Napa/Sonoma map. Maybe something like: Reviews have not always been positive, as one reviewer from about.com, while giving the map generally favorable ratings, found the San Francisco map "too busy".[4] But on the flip side "it's astonishing how much information MapEasy packs onto one map". http://gocalifornia.about.com/od/canapasonoma/gr/mapeasynapa.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by CourtMTK ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Please disregard my comments I didn't see you had already put it up. Thanks again for all your help. It looks great! CourtMTK ( talk) 22:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

User:Cuyler91093/Shaka

One of these days you and I are going to have a big fight. I carnt spell, I admit it, less save our punches for a bigger occasion. MF. ;-) Byw, anybody who posts a pic of themselves in a bathrob on the internets is fine by me. Ceoil ( talk) 06:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello... regarding the Judge Judy article, it is probably best to protect it temporarily to avoid disruption. However, before judging JuJube's actions too harshly, I would seriously recommend investigating the possibility that the rapidly-changing IP "editors" are one-and-the-same with blocked user EverybodyHatesChris. I originally came to the JJ article several month ago when that editor was evading an indefinite block through a series of sockpuppets; he eventually ended up with having his (then-static) IP blocked as well. The mannerisms are consistent, as well as the slavish dedication to "Judge Judy", the abusive comments, and the tendency to turn against editors who don't support him. Please feel free to ask if you have any questions about this. Thanks. -- Ckatz ^chat _spy 17:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Given the nature and pattern of the IP's edits, I thought it would be obvious sockpuppetry and I rolled back because banned users aren't allowed to edit. JuJube ( talk) 17:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I made a thread on ANI regarding his pattern of harassment of Ckatz. Diffs are there. JuJube ( talk) 22:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Come on dude, back me up here: I say this is the best image for the article. Your opinion? · AndonicO ^Hail! 19:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

It seems to me that this block was improvident. The user responded to a comment on a talk page that he didn't like, and was immediately reverted because of WP:FORUM. So he blanked the original comment, which was just as much a violation. You can't have it both ways. -- Zsero ( talk) 19:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The IP has been blanking other people's comments from Talk:Warrior (wrestler). The others discussion was about content and sources to the article. The IP is now back creating more disruption. I have since restored the comments that were again removed by another user. The IP should be blocked longer for his/her continued disruption after the initial block. - ✰ ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi! Thank you for unblocking me. Although I will refrain from uploading pictures I have one question about pictures. Looking at the discussion over whether I should be unblocked I noticed someone said that promotional photos can't be used to depict people. I probably am just not understanding but isn't the picture used on people's pages (like Reba McEntire) promotional photos?-- Sportman2 ( talk) 19:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, it's been two weeks since you last messaged me, and I have been working continuously here (especially in CSD, but participated in one AIV, which was successful, see [13]). Those are a few things you can put on there. I helped a few new users be more acquainted with Wikipedia (see [14], [15], [16], and [17]). — Cuyler 91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 06:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Also, I started a new page on the English Wikipedia directly translated from the Spanish Wikipedia. It's not done yet, but it will be someday ( [18]) — Cuyler 91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 06:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I have been talking for about two weeks with another user about a proposal to change how admin get their mop. This is all based off of observation I have made over time. Below is a cut out from my first email I sent to the user, the conversation was concerning recent incidents involving new admin. The other user suggested I propose this to an admin and as I like you I thought I would suggest it to you. The reason behind the cutout is that I did not want to type all of that again.

"Have you taken note about how unreliable some of the administrators are, not all just some of the ones who have been recently added. I like the older ones but the new ones seem to be using to much water when using their mops. Take note at the AN/I there was a recent case in which an admin was over doing it with the blocks. He was shiny new, I believe he got his powers that week. But he is not the only one, if you go the noticeboards often you would notice that a lot of the new administrators only tend to last less than a week or so because they are either edit warring with their powers or abusing the block function which goes hand in hand with edit warring. I am not calling out anyone here but I do feel it a necessity to change the process in which admin are selected. because RfA seems to be failing. I would like suggest that Wikipedia stay with RfA but instead of just giving out the tools in a huge pack. They should dole out the powers in separate chunks based off a system of tasks that need to be completed before you can get a certain power. Lets say you wanted to get the block ability, you would need to properly report a certain number of people to WP:AIV and then after that request the ability to block like a rollback proposal. It would only require the person seeking the power to keep track of the number of edits."

The reporting to WP:AIV was just an example and I do not suggest it. I also do not feel it necessary for all tools just high risk ones. Rgoodermote  11:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Disagree entirely. The system is fine. With almost 2000 admins, there are bound to be some screwups. I don't see any evidence of a widespread problem. Archtransit aside, I haven't seen any real problematic new admins... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry to butt in here (why are you on my watchlist Jayron? Did you screw up somewhere? Hmm..anywho... Rgoodermote, I would recommend telling your email buddy to also read this little essay for clarification as to why that particular Pandora's Box that you think would be interesting has in fact been nailed and glued shut, buried deep beneath the ocean floor, never to be reopened. Adminship broken down into steps, completion of tasks? Yikes, talk about MMORPG'ing. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Nope, I never screw up. I would be perfect, except once, many years ago I thought I was wrong. It turns out that I actually was right. Other than that, my record of perfection in all situations is untarnished. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Ah, it's good to see that someone else around here is modest. I for one, am one of the humblest people I know. I'm humbler than everyone. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

It would appear that my perfection is only overshadowed by your humilty. My hat is off to you sir!-- Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Why haven't you messaged me back? I believe I have messaged you about four to five times, and you have not replied. — Cuyler 91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 17:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Okay, alright then. I will keep working and then I will try. Sorry to bother you! — Cuyler 91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 17:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Because you one of my favorite admin I will listen to you. But I still feel a change is in store. So I will go back to th drawing boards. By the way, your talk page appears to be on my watchlist to...what did you do? Rgoodermote  17:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I do lots of things. But you'll never prove any of them. Muhahaha. Muhahaha. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 18:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

One of these days we will figure it out, until then happy editing. Rgoodermote  17:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Time for semi-protection for a while I'm afraid. We can't go on reverting thiss guy all night. Harry the Dog ( talk) 20:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

He's been a pain in the neck over at the Doctor Who list of serials for quite some time - we tend to just RBI. User:Rodhullandemu is also a bit annoyed with him too. But anyway, does this count for adding poorly sourced material? The character did die in the previous (just aired) episode, but, if you've been watching Lost, for example, death doesn't mean you can't be in the cast any more. Will ^{( talk)} 23:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

OK... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Shimon Peres

Hi. Ive nominated this article for a peer review and saw you were interested in the topics it covers. If you are able to, any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere ( talk) 14:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

CatLink

Thanks for your clear and straightforward explanation as to why we had to decline. -- Orange Mike | Talk 04:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

No problem. I do my best. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 04:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

AkiKumira99

Should I removed the plagurized awards on her talk page? I've dealt with this user before. — B o L 05:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Took care of it. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 05:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The barnstar from Nlu was legit. I restored that one.  :) Corvus cornix _talk 05:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Minor thing

Hey Jayron, I've seen you around and have always thought you made really good points and I've come to respect your opinion. I did want to mention, though, that I think you may be coming off as more hostile than you mean to with posts like this one and the one in that thread before it, since it's so easy to misinterpret terse posts as being mean (and if you do intend to sound mean, I'd submit that that's probably not the best way to handle the situation). Figured I'd bring it up to you and let you act on it or ignore it as you choose :) Peace, delldot on a public computer talk 11:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You're probably right about that. Sometimes we all get in "moods" and I am no different. I will try to be more thoughtful in my posts. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 14:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks :) I was shy about mentioning this, so I'm glad you were nice about it :) Peace, delldot talk 15:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Shaka

Hi, I don't know if you got this message, yet, so I will give it to you again.

Aloha, Jayron32! Cuyler91093 would like to give you a shaka! A shaka is a hand gesture used in Hawaii to say "Hi" and show common courtesy. Please sign with three tildes if you have received this message at User:Cuyler91093/Shaka. You can pass on the Hawaiian spirit by placing {{ User:Cuyler91093/Shaka|Your username here}} on somebody else's talk page. Aloha!

Geordie

I have used the talk page in the past with web-citations to issue why my statement is right, however the editor Gregs the baker chooses not to listen to me and keep reverting, he is being a WP:DICK about things. 86.150.252.106 ( talk) 18:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I haven't seen any statements under this IP, as supported by his contributions [19] MickMacNee ( talk) 19:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The statments appear to be his edit summaries, which are fair enough. Zogonthetyne ( talk) 19:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually, they are NOT good enough. Using edit summaries to explain what you are doing does NOT exempt someone from the Three Revert Rule. However, I have not seen the IP address revert SINCE my stern final warning on his talk page, so it would appear there is no action to take at this time. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 21:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

There has been more reverting going on, on the article again without any concensus, can you re-revert back to your version and fully protect the page? 86.148.189.190 ( talk) 11:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I would rather he recognised the obvious sock puppetry going on here and protect the page from anonymous IP edits. MickMacNee ( talk) 12:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I have to agree Jayron32. This does appear to be socks of a banned user, so the reverts Greg the baker were doing there could be considered kosher for reverting a banned user. Metros ( talk) 13:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks

for stopping the geordie dispute, I did post a rationale on Talk:Geordie, but he ignored it, take a look. Zogonthetyne ( talk) 19:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• By my count, 86.150.252.106 has reverted 6 times, and made an odd reversion on RFCU where gregg raises the possibility of a possible sock puppet of a banned user(s). I also now note that User:Zogonthetyne registered at 19:01, 15 February 2008. MickMacNee ( talk) 19:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The Ip should have been blocked, I agree with that, but please do not accuse me of being the Ip or banned user, I created the account to edit the article geordie, as you seen, and the dispute cutted after my simple edits, thus leading to me attempting to settle the dispute which is being dicussed on Talk:Geordie. Zogonthetyne ( talk) 19:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Fuck you too

It's me CplJames! To me, you're not shut. Fuck you! I know the truth on interracial marriage and [miscegenation]! What the fuck makes you think you know about them. I speak the truth of what's going on! You can block me all you want! I will create another account. 75.140.66.105 ( talk) 21:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Right.... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 21:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree, Jay. Fuck you. You're teh suck. This was obviously a bad block. You should be ashamed. Just ashamed. How do you sleep at night knowing that you've blocked such sweet, constructive editors? I mean rly. Shameful. Lara ❤ Love 06:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, Jayron, you're not shut! Corvus cornix _talk 06:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, I should be probably be tortured for this. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 06:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

WHY DID YOU DELETE GROWLING BEAR?

I don't think the deletion of my Growling Bear page is right. I didn't get to finish it, so of course there wouldn't be any Historical or Important info yet, I was only on his childhood. I request you to un-delete it if you can so I can finish it.

                       
Hunts-The-Enemy (
talk) 22:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
reply

RE: Your userpage

That picture always makes me burst out laughing. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I wish I could take credit for it, but I found it somewhere (I have NO idea where) and it had the same effect on me, so I stole it and put it on my userpage. Feel free to take it for your own userpage. Later! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 05:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Jackson Ellis

It seems to me like being publisher and founder of a non-notable publication doesn't give anybody notability, so I listed it for afd. Corvus cornix _talk 06:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You have my blessing to do so. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 06:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I did.  :) Corvus cornix _talk 06:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

And I voted. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 06:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

FYI: Blotto adrift

Just an FYI, but the IP you blocked who was harassing Blotto adrift is somebody I'm well aware of. Just look at the IP vandalism on my user page for past couple of months. He will probably be back and leave you a nice {{uw-block}} on your user page, too. Welcome to the club. =) -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 06:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh joy! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 06:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Nodoka Miyazaki

Can you take a look at the page history of the Nodoka Miyazaki article and do something about it? I've requested page protection for it on the WP:RFPP page, but until now there is still no response. Is the activity enough for semi-protection. If not, can you block 198.85.213.96 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? He's the primary culprit who posted a paragraph using weasel words and unsourced "fan response." - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 06:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

USRD Newsletter - Issue 2

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 2, Issue 2 • 17 February 2008 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors Coming and going	Features Interstate 355 becomes USRD's newest Featured Article Commons refuses to delete superseded shields Michigan project breaks the 4.000 barrier USRD relative WW comes close to surpassing Wikipedia relative WW The newest neologism issue January 26 Meetup	State and national updates Leaderboard California Michigan New Jersey New York Utah
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. — O bot ( t • c) 03:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Rollback permissions

Hi Jayron, one last request for you. Could you please grant me rollback permissions? I wish to use them for new page patrol. Thank you! — Cuyler 91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 09:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Rollback

Thank you so much for the rollback! I will not abuse the permission, and I thank you. I apologize if I am irritating you by constantly posting on your page. Again, thank you! — Cuyler 91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 23:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Not irritating at all! Its been my pleasure! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 11:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi

Hi. I don't assume bad faith, and I hope you don't get offended by my comment. Sometimes I do use a sarcastic tone, which is partly a product of limitation in the amount of text one can introduce into an edit summary argument. My experience at wiki is that notability, the criteria that I (possibly incorrectly) assumed you motivated the prod on, is valued very differently if something relates to US/Europe and if it relates to places in the Third World. Mizoram has a population larger than several European countries, and a party represented in its legislative assembly is, in my opinion, notable by default. The fact that its leader was an assembly member is mention in the article. Regarding the lack of references, {{refimprove}} would be an adequate tag. -- Soman ( talk) 13:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Please help me!

I reported user:Prester John at Wikiquette alerts (take a look). For his removal of legitimate warnings, his discreetly racist edits and other things. He has since edited my report on several occasions to misrepresent my comments http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiquette_alerts&diff=192345406&oldid=192197739 - He then threatens a Checkuser request against me without suggesting which user he believes I am and why. I believe that PJ is attacking me in order to divert attention from the report I have filed against him and am now of the opinion that PJ's threats warrant harder action than a mere discussion at Wikiquette. It is grossly innapropriate for a user to threaten another just because they have asked for comment on the user's conduct! Help me out here! (Also per WP:RFCU "checkuser is not for fishing") -- Capitana ( talk)

I've copy and pasted this to ANI and some other admin talk pages in case you are not online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capitana ( talk • contribs) 18:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Let's let ANI take its course. We need to keep this open as possible. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 18:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Okay thanks :). -- Capitana ( talk) 18:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

"Content dispute"

Since when does consistently removing templates without explanation not count as vandalism? I have seen some admins block for a lot less than that. -- Roleplayer ( talk) 19:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Well I stand completely by my actions. The user in question did not once make a comment in an edit summary as to why he was removing the templates from the pages, and on his talk page referred only to commercial links. It was not the removal of commercial links that I kept reverting. -- Roleplayer ( talk) 01:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

My signature

Why can't I have a link to my article in my signature? I doesn't seem to cause any problems. Jason ( talk) 19:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I can answer that for you. Your signature is designed to identify you in the realm of Wikipedia. By linking to an article apparently about you in your signature, you (whether or not you mean to) make a tacit reciprocal claim between your Wikipedia identity and that article. That 1) presents conflict-of-interest issues and 2) has a potential to confuse users (who may unwittingly mistake your article for your userpage). - Revolving Bugbear 19:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Okay, then I'll change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Smith (Casey) ( talk • contribs) 19:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

It this one okay? Jason ( talk, profile) 19:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

What about this one? Can I at least link to my contributions log? Jason ( talk, contributions 19:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Block of 203.155.2.3

FYI, the user resumed his or her acts of vandalism as soon as your block was lifted. Can the user be re-blocked immediately (and for a longer period of time), or is normal procedure to wait for another five acts of vandalism to occur? Chewyrunt ( talk) 14:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Taken care of. Thanks for the heads up! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 14:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you! Chewyrunt ( talk) 21:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Still concerned

Hey, Jayron; I've just discovered that Congolese fufu ( talk · contribs) is also blocked, and possibly tangled in that whole mess (his block led to the Jehochman block), so I can't help but be concerned about Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boeing 747. The early supports came from two editors who have entered several strange declarations at FAC. How satisfied are you that this article is up to standard, or should I inquire of Marskell whether he thinks it should be revisited at FAR? I'm concerned that the article might not have been thoroughly vetted, although the Aviation WikiProject seems satisfied. If you're satisfied, so am I. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The article itself looks OK. I still stand by my support of it. I know next to nothing about aviation, if THEY feel its OK, then I say it's OK. Even if it turns out to have been promoted out of process, if its featured quality now, what is the point in jumping through any hoops to cleanse it of the Archtransit business. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 06:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Kosovo addition

I find it highly concerning that Serbia is not even mentioned in the opening line of the Kosovo article. Having been recognized by 15 countries (as of February 20, 2008), it is still not recognized by the majority of countries, and is still not opened the door of UN and various international organizations. I think saying only "partially recognized republic" is too close to "republic", way more than to "Serbian province". In that spirit I find it necessary to mention the "Serbian province" part, and I think it should be mentioned as the first part of NPOV, since status quo is still on and don't want to anticipate things. Maybe it's relevant to mention that Dbachmann agrees with this point of view (See Talk:Kosovo#Recognized). Cheers -- Ml01172 ( talk) 20:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Don't really care. The protection was done to deal with the edit war, and not because any one side of it was right or wrong. Use the talk page to bring this up so that people who DO care can deal with it in a civil way. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 20:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree with you that edit warring has got to stop, but I'm afraid you froze it in a bad moment. It is a matter of days whether this province of Serbia is going to be recognized by a majority of countries, and having no mentioning of Serbia in the opening line can mislead citizens of the countries that may or may not recognize its independence. If you leave it being a "republic" (even only partially recognized) and don't mention that the majority of countries still don't recognize it as such, and then protect the page, I'm afraid you're responsible for misleading readers in these very sensible days. -- Ml01172 ( talk) 20:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

To lessen your work and thinking about it, I will make it more concrete - put it whatever way you want - "recognized as republic by some countries, recognized as Serbian province by others" (you can name the countries that did if you want). But please be aware that letting the article stay this way after being blocked is the same as leaning towards Albanian side, because that's exactly what they want and is not NEARLY NPOV. Thank you for your efforts. -- Ml01172 ( talk) 20:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Still don't care. Please read m:The Wrong Version. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 20:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't think "the wrong version" has anything to do with it, Jayron: it is a very bad idea to fully protect an article tagged as {{ current}} for a full week. Not a good idea at all. You should consider other measures to enforce article probation (such as, warning and blocking the misbehaving editors). dab (𒁳) 20:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Due to your protection of the Kosovo article, I'll "award" you for keeping Wikipedia sane and not in glockshot anarchy (glockshot = used to mince profanity). Your kind is sometimes rare in Wikipedia. (barnstar comes later) - iaNLOPEZ1115-/- TaLKBaCK-/- Vandalize it 11:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For protecting the Kosovo article due to its recent independence(?) and by averting another edit war in that process. iaNLOPEZ1115-/- TaLKBaCK-/- Vandalize it 11:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you! I am not proud of having to do it; it would be much nicer if people kept their shit together and were able to work these things out on talk pages rather than on the main articles. Hopefully this will inspire them to do so. For the record, the talk page has been very active and productive SINCE the protection, so I hope it worked... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 13:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Re: unblock request

I wouldn't of made the block indefinite, but he trolled the talk page [20] and then edited the article saying "rvv - please see talk page", [21] so I didn't think he was being serious the whole time. I didn't think vandalising a userpage, trolling an article's talk page, and violating 3rr after being warned was a sign of someone who's here to be productive. But if you think he deserves another shot, you can lift the block. Spellcast ( talk) 20:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Deletion of Pythomnic article

Dear editor, you have deleted my article on Pythomnic, a software system that I'm writing and maintaining on the basis that it is G11 blatant advertising. The way I see it I have clearly and truthfully stated what the thing is, what is its purpose, what are its key features and where it is best used. Can you please tell me what part of the following article exactly rings the "blatant adertising" alarm ?

Pythomnic is a software platform for developing distributed network services in Python.

Its primary area of use is the development of integration middleware in highly heterogeneous enterprise networks.

The design of Pythomnic itself is based on the following practical considerations:

• Integration is difficult, because none of the 3rd party systems deployed in the enterprise is really interested in integration with any other. This is why you need middleware in the first place.
• Integration capabilities of various systems are very limited. They may support different protocols and offer proprietary APIs. Even when a standard protocol compliance is declared, the implementation is often incomplete or broken. In the worst case the only way to integrate to a system is via file swapping.
• You cannot modify the 3rd party systems by yourself. Pushing the vendor to make modifications to a system is often impossible or at least lengthy or expensive.
• At the same time, any vendor can modify his system at his own convenience at any time.
• Once deployed, a service becomes more and more important over time, the enterprise depends on it and its outages are failures are very undesirable.

The key features of Pythomnic are:

• Pythomnic application modules and configuration can be modified at runtime and the changes are applied on the fly, without restart.
• Pythomnic supports a wide range of network protocols over which its services accept requests from client systems. The processing of the requests is done in a straightforward and uniform fashion.
• Pythomnic application is organized is a set of collaborating processes called cages, running perhaps on different machines called nodes. A cage can be migrated from one node to another without any configuration. More than one instance of each cage can be run for redundancy and fault-tolerance. Cages communicate using synchronous RPC or P2P message queues.

A typical Pythomnic application may be one of the following:

• A standalone network service, providing some valuable services to network clients over some standard network protocol.
• An adapter for some 3rd party system lacking integration capabilities. In this case a cage is accepting requests

from its clients over standard protocol and converting it to a proprietary API calls.

• Integration middleware layer - a set of services that wraps some of the 3rd party systems present in the network

into separate network services, just like in the previous case. The systems then communicate with each other over one or more standard network protocols that Pythomnic cages convert into proprietary API calls. If necessary, the cages can also communicate using Pythomnic RPC or P2P queues.

• A fault-tolerant network service, which offloads parts of the actual processing to separate cages,

running in multiple copies on different nodes. In this case a perimeter cage can simply yield to a worker cage using an RPC or a P2P queue call.

Targeted ( talk) 18:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The wording of the article was such that it sounded more like advertising or marketting material than neutral, unbiased encyclopedia material. That you say above that this is software you are currently developing yourself would seem to confirm this. An example of a specific thing that rang alarm bells would be the articles obvious bias: entirely positive comments about the subject, entirely negative about all alternatives.

Articles about software, and other products, should be about those that already have a degree of interest through existing success, not a means of promoting the product. -- BrucePodger ( talk) 21:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for adding that. Go ahead and respond on that user's talk page as well, since i am not sure if they watch my talk page. That is useful information. I have responded on their talk page also. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 21:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Re 203.209.26.36

Whack, whack, whack! :-) -- NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Arrrgh. More: [22] -- NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

They keep popping up! And I only have the one big poofy mallet. What will I do!!! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 05:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

May I suggest paving? LeadSongDog ( talk) 14:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Request for comment on main page deletion incident

As you made an edit to the incident listed in the Administrators notice board, it is requested that you confirm the details of the incident here (section 1.1.2)

This is as the incident is used as the basis of an argument and needs to be confirm by persons familar with the event

Regards -- User:Mitrebox talk 2008-02-22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.11.244.78 ( talk) 07:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

SocialPicks

I just wanted to update you about this article. I removed two of the sources that just mention SocialPicks on a line or so. Dimension31 ( talk) 11:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Vandalism report

The entry User:74.163.223.240 you deleted from WP:AIV isn't just SP, he's also repeatedly blanked and db'd category pages even after warnings. Also note profane personal attacks on user talk pages. Thanks, Technobadger ( talk) 19:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Speedy Walk Through?

Hi Jayron, I saw your comment to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fredfox and I don't disagree that he appears entirely n-n, however I'm not comfortable speedying people because the criteria don't seem entirely firm. Is there a tutorial somewhere with examples? I'm familiar with WP:CSD but I've still speedied some things where the speedy was removed, and not speedied where I could have so I'm a bit confused. Thanks! Travellingcari ( talk) 19:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Wow, thanks so much for that information. It clarifies things a lot. I'm sure I'll have other questions in the future but that does the job well for now. On another note I love your user page Travellingcari ( talk) 20:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Its the picture, isn't it? I mean the rest of it is no big deal. For the record, I have NO idea where I got it from. Its something I stole from someone elses user page, LOLed over it, and put it on mine. If you like it, feel free to add it to yours... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 20:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

It's funny how we find and snag, isn't it :) Travellingcari ( talk) 20:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm jealous of the chest hair.

I'm having some issues with another AfD and would like your opinion on issues of notability/verifiability. One editor is stating that sources don't have to available online to be sources, which could be a valid argument in some cases, but I don't think it applies here. The talk page for the article is here. If you just want to comment here or on my talk page, that would be fine. I can usually handle myself, and I don't want to be seen as shopping for opinion. Regards. -- Daddy.twins ( talk) 23:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

New Source On SocialPicks

I recently added SocialPicks#_note-0. You might want to take a look at it. Dimension31 ( talk) 05:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Shadow People

As you are aware there is currently a dispute over the contents of the entry Shadow people. The page has been edit protected twice. I've added my two cents worth to the talk page and so have a number of other users, but there doesn't seem like we are any closer to agreement between ourselves. What would need to be done in order to take this to the next step and to get some kind of admin or arbitration ruling? The normal process of resolution through dialog appears to have reached an impasse.

perfectblue ( talk) 11:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Pats

Hey Jayron. New England Patriots is about to have its FA status removed. It may have almost hundred percent to do with this edit you made. That was pretty big. I understand what you were trying to do, but that removed 3/4 of the article and about 40 references. Please reply on my talk page. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 16:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply

B S

		The Barnstar of Good Humour
		For your impressive nomination rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somebody Else's Problem field. Guest9999 ( talk) 18:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Elisabeth Becker

Hi, I noticed that you added a unreferenced template in the article Elisabeth Becker. I think as the article is marked as stub, tags are not needed. So I have removed the tag. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 18:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

My Unblock

Thank you, much appreciated JFBurton ( talk) 17:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply

RE: Username

It's amazing, you are the third person who has asked me that now. The username was reported to UAA as being promotional account only, I checked all contribs and they were all spam so the account was blocked. Given that from memory all contribs were deleted spam the user can just create a new account (or does he want the existing name) as account creation was not disabled. I'll unblock it in a mo. Regards, SGGH ^speak! 22:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply

block

Didn't stick right? -  CobaltBlueTony™  _talk 21:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Fixed it... Later. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 21:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Now I see. Thx. -  CobaltBlueTony™  _talk —Preceding comment was added at 21:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Delegable proxy

Answered on my own talk page. :-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 13:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC).. reply

Sock puppet block

You blocked this user for one month because of disruptive edits. Is it possible to extend the blocks for all the other sock puppets of this user? Many were blocked for just 31 hours for the same offenses. 192.195.66.45 ( talk) 19:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I didn't realize this was a larger problem. We are working on this at WP:ANI. Feel free to contribute there... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 19:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Weedbag might not be a sock

First off, thank you so much for the recent blocks, I was getting hammered by multiple accounts at the same time and it sorta sucked ;)

That said, on further consideration, I no longer think Weedbag was one of the socks; I think he/she was just poking their nose where it didn't belong and made ridiculously false accusation against me. I am okay with a conditional reduction/lifting of the block (see User talk:Weedbag). -- Jaysweet ( talk) 20:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Re: Impersonation

Thanks for blocking the IP, but could you take a quick look at the related suspected sock puppet page, the contribs of the past hour of the account is about remembering how this all became involved before! Thanks Whit stable 21:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I have no real comment on that. Are you saying that Crystalclearchanges is the sockpuppet of the IP address? I see no clear evidence of that. You need to perhaps bring up that evidence at the SSP page for someone else to deal with...-- Jayron32. talk. contribs 21:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

It is the modus operandi, sadly. And as it seems the user appears to have discovered proxies, it could be a nasty one Whit stable 21:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

What??? First of all you accuse me of being the sockpuppet of a banned user, and now you start telling me that I have been talking to myself using an IP address????? You really are somethng else arent you. Crystalclearchanges ( talk) 21:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Um, keep this off of my talk page. This is NOT the place to have this discussion. Have it elsewhere, not here... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 21:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello again

Hi, I was wondering if you could recover Talk:Richard and Karen Carpenter's Official Fanatic Page, which was my talk page back in 2006 (what was I thinking?!) and move it to User talk:Cuyler91093/Archive 01? Thank you! —Preceding comment was added at 23:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, looking at that articles deletion history, it was moved to your talk page once already in the past. Just look through your talk page history on October 5, 2006. That's when it was moved... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humour
		This mostly harmless nomination deserves recognition. Eusebeus ( talk) 23:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

How did I break the 3RR?

Could you point to me how I broke the 3RR causing a ban? [23]-- Nostradamus1 ( talk) 02:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Sure, since you didn't appear to actually read the policy page, the part that says "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. " 3RR is not an entitlement to revert 3 times; you were well aware that others objected to your edits, and yet RATHER than establishing consensus on the talk page to make them, you remade them anyways. That's enough for a block... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Orlando articles

Please protect Kraken (roller coaster) ... it was targeted by the sock puppeteer. Thanks. -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 04:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

done. If you find anymore, let me know. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 04:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

We are in need of assistance. The puppeteer's original account block has lapsed, and he's back to the same tactics, as shown in the article for Splendid China (Florida). Again, we're trying to explain things and keep assuming good faith, but it doesn't seem to be helping. -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 21:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks :)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For assistance on Orlando/Disney-related articles, we can put a stop to this dynamic IP vandal :) seicer | talk | contribs 04:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks :) I had set it to 3-days but noted that others were like... 1 month. You should check out #wikipedia-en-roads since you are a part of the NC Highways project! (Link on my page) seicer | talk | contribs 04:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Don't really do the IRC thing. But thanks for the tip! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 04:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, thanks for your help. Felt kinda helpless, and glad you all were able to assist. -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 04:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Agreed with above. Thank you for your assistance. SpikeJones ( talk) 02:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

New sock up and running in Epcot article. Was fully protected, but that has dropped off. Need semi-protect. Will post in appropriate forums. Thanks. -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 22:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Andrew I. Nevins

Andrew I. Nevins is a REAL PERSON. I don't understand why you deleted my page. Please don't do so again. I consider such to be vandalism. Thank you, Vandalist1235 ( talk) 05:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

One of you guys just blocked my username

What's up with that?! Do you have any idea who's WikiPedia page you just deleted?! This guy is a legit HARVARD PROFESSOR?! http://fas.harvard.edu/~lingdept/f_nevins.html . A leader in the field of Formal Phonology and Morphology, Pronouns and Agreement?! A lover of pronoun agreement?! Since when are these not legitimate criteria for inclusion in the annals of WikiPedia?! You need to take off your bathrobe, throw on some big-boy pants, and take a chill pill!?! Andrewnevinsjrjr ( talk) 06:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Your speedy of Col. William Nicol Fife

Yo, the author of the above quoted article you deleted on copyright infringement grounds has replaced the page with an argument asserting the content was public domain. Can you verify their claims, or otherwise re-delete the article? Thanks, скоморохъ 09:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Colleen

FYI [24] Slrubenstein | Talk 11:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Concerning the delete

I have posted my reply to the deletion of the "Beyond protocol" article, I would be very happy if a discussion could be held.

Ultraexactzz mentioned that I needed more links to independent interviews and the like Here are 4 link to informative sites about the game, do you think this is enough? I will continue to look for more anyway http://www.mmortsgamers.com/content/view/168/1/ http://www.mmortsgamers.com/content/view/167/1/ http://beyondprotocol.wikidot.com http://www.beyondprotocol.com

Rolles ( talk) 15:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)rolles reply

The Land of Bad Fantasy

I've taken the step of replacing the A3 on The Land of Bad Fantasy. Looking at the user's history, it's clear he's a bored kid in a school library experimenting with this site. There is nothing beyond the fact that this is a book published last year. No plot summary, no synopsis, nothing. In short, this is not an article but a declarative statement. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 16:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Never mind; I've fleshed it out myself. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 16:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• • Thanks. You know, sometimes admins do some reaseach and actually know what we are doing. I added some stuff as well. A1/A3 is for when there is NOT enough information even to do a google search to expand the article. Stubs are for when there IS enough information to do further research and provide more information. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 16:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron32

User: Dahn

I am inclined to grant his unblock request after I went through his edit history. I cannot find any outright edit warring or repeated reversions. If you have some difs that show what the problematic edits were, perhaps that would help me make an informed decision, otherwise I am inclinced to unblock at this point. Thanks! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

After quickly looking through the Romanian people article this is what I found: [25], [26], [27], [28] and [29]. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 18:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply