Hi Jayron32, If you have time, I'd really appreciate your feedback on the film biography, Jack Warner, which I recently nominated for peer review. Cheers, -- twelsht ( talk) 23:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks Jayron, I was dissatisfied with the lead but couldn't put my finger on what was wrong with it. Your comments put a spotlight on the problem. I'll revamp the lead and move on other issues tomorrow. For now, I placed all the material on Warner's professional life in one section and created a new section titled "Death and legacy". As you recommended, material on Warner's career as an independent producer is now in the "Professional life" section. Thanks, again, for your feedback! Cheers, -- twelsht ( talk) 02:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey, Jayron, I'm a bit perplexed about your recent block of 70.168.196.48. It seems to me that this revert is a self-revert and thus shouldn't count toward the rule. Maybe I'm missing something, and you could explain it to me. Cheers, Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

oops. Missed that. Unblocking now. Good catch. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, I don't think your Oppose vote was fair. We changed from international recessions to United States-only recessions about 5 minutes ago. At the very least, I would appreciate it if you changed it to a comment before voting immediately like that. Gary King ( talk) 04:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

If the list is that unstable, I see no reason why my vote should not stand. At least decide what the list is about before nominating it!!! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 04:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

He's not guilty of breaking the 3rr rule... but (as I said on the intervention page) he is guilty of consitently ignoring warnings and general vandalism... removing valid tags fromt he article without discussing it. In my opinion, a short block is waranted for those reasons.-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 05:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Let's let it go for now. The IP has stopped, there's nothing to do for now... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 05:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Can you at least put a thrid/final warning on his page... he's just going tocome back and do it again in aday or two. I don't like to be the one to give out all the warnings.-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 05:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

At this point, there's not much of a point. Given that many IPs are assigned dynamically, or to public computers, given that it has been hours since that IP was used to edit, there is no guarantee that the next person to use that IP is the same that has been vandalising. At this point, lets just wait and see on that one. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 06:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I respect your opinion but I'm going to put a third warning on the page... it ic clear from the history that this IP has been consistently used by one user in wikipedia during the last month.-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 06:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

OK. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 06:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

How could you sponsor the deletion of Somebody Else's Problem field... that's like blasphemy... I think I even made a few of the edits to that page (P.S. since inflection doesn;t come through on message boards... let me say that this message should be taken in the tone of good natured ribbing... although I do really wish you hadn't had it deleted... not that I plan on bringing it back).-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 06:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Although... 2 and a half days is kind of short for a deletion debate isn't it?-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 06:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

(pre-ec comments)Eh... ribbing accepted. I expected some flak for that, but I think I made clear in my nom that I was clearly a fan of the books, but even being so I still could not see why the article existed... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 06:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

(post EC comments) I didn't close it. I only started it... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 06:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah... and I see now it actually lasted 6 days. Oh well... it was a funny summary you wrote.-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 06:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I try! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 06:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

before you start accusing me of being disruptve please read what i actually wrote instead of reading wht you think i wrote. i told him that it did NOT matter what he siad about homeopathy here only that he had to convince the blockign admin that he wdid not intend to be disruptive. i really would like it if people gave me warnigns based on things that i actually did wrong instead of things that i did right but they didnt take the time to read carefully and understand. Smith Jones ( talk) 16:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Perhaps if you worked harder on conversing with others in coherant English and maybe used appropriate sentance structure, spelling, and grammar, then people would not so easily misunderstand what you are saying. Proper communication is not hard, and perhaps if you focused on more carefully crafting your messages before you hit the "Save page" button, these kinds of misunderstandings could be avoided. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The March 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) 19:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey Jayron. I don't think you saw the message all the way above. So here it is again: 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

You should maybe add the material and weave that your bathrobe is made of to the caption in the article. bibliomaniac 1 5 I see no changes 02:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash ( talk) 06:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 5 - March 2008 February issue | April issue Project News There are currently 3,647 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 185 unreviewed articles. Out of 237 total nominations, 42 are on hold, and 10 are under review. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Ian Browne (cyclist), Tony Marchant, Reginald fitz Jocelin, Annie Russell, Brodie Croyle, and Jimmy Moore. The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (39 articles), Theatre, film, and drama (34 articles), Transport (23 articles), Music (21 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Culture and society (13 articles), Places (13 articles), and World history (12 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 13 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 Two members joined the sweeps team this month. They are Jwanders and jackyd101. Jwanders swept Physics sub-category quickly and is now sweeping "Astronomy and astrophysics". Meanwhile, jackyd101 is sweeping "Armies, military units and legal issues". During February, 66 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 33 were kept as GA, 21 delisted, 17 currently on hold or at GAR, and 1 was exempted as they are now Featured Articles. Reviewer of the Month Blnguyen is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for February, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Blnguyen is from South Australia and has been editing Wikipedia since 2005. He was also the reviewer for the month of December 2007, so this marks the second time that he has been GAN's Top Reviewer for the Month. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for February! Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include: Blnguyen ( talk · contribs) David Fuchs ( talk · contribs) Derek.cashman ( talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide ( talk · contribs) Calbear22 ( talk · contribs) Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs) Jackturner3 ( talk · contribs) TimVickers ( talk · contribs) VanTucky ( talk · contribs) Wrad ( talk · contribs) Member News There are now 185 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 9 new members that joined during the month of February: Bibliomaniac15 ( talk · contribs) Canyouhearmenow ( talk · contribs) Chrisisinchrist ( talk · contribs) Ed! ( talk · contribs) Juliancolton ( talk · contribs) Kakofonous ( talk · contribs) LOTRrules ( talk · contribs) Matthewedwards ( talk · contribs) Nousernamesleft ( talk · contribs) Did You Know... ...that the shortest timespan for a GA to be listed and subsequently delisted is 8 minutes? (The article is Project Chanology and currently listed on WP:GAR) ...that the current nominations system started on March 10, 2006? ...that in May 2006, number of GA surpassed number of FA? 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! One GA Requirement - The Lead Section By Geometry guy In this issue, we will focus on one of the requirements for good articles: a good article article should follow Wikipedia's guideline on lead sections. So what does this guideline say, why does it say what it does, and how can good article reviewers help? The lead section is particularly important, because for many readers, it is the only part of the article which they will read. For instance, they may have come to the article by following a wikilink in another article simply to obtain a quick overview before they continue reading the original article. They may only read the first paragraph, or even the first sentence. On the other hand, one of the joys of Wikipedia is the way that it embodies the endlessly branching tree of knowledge; if a lead is well written, it may encourage even such a reader to read on and learn something new. This is reflected in the terminology: "lead" is a word taken from journalism, where it recognized that many readers will only read the beginning of a newspaper article, and so it is important to convey the key points first, before going into detail. Note that "lead", in this sense, is pronounced as in "leading question" and is sometimes spelled as "lede" by journalists to distinguish it from lead, the metal, which was once very important in typesetting. Wikipedia supports both spellings. Wikipedia:Lead section is written with all this in mind, and describes two different roles for the lead: first, it should introduce the topic; second it should summarize the article. This is not always as easy as it seems; indeed, it is almost impossible to write a good lead if the article itself does not cover the topic well. It has a side benefit that an article which satisfies this guideline is probably also broad: if the lead is both a good introduction and a summary, then the article probably covers the main points. The good article process is often the first place in which an article is judged against this criterion, yet many current good articles may not meet it. A common fault is that the lead is purely an introduction, while the rest of the article contains other information, which should be summarized in the lead, but isn't. So, how can reviewers help to improve this? One approach is to read the rest of the article, and not the lead, first. Make a note of the significant points discussed in the article. There is usually at least one important issue in each section. Then, go back to the lead and ask the following questions: Does the first sentence of the lead define the topic, as described in the article? Is the most important information mentioned in the first paragraph? Is the lead a suitable length for the article? The lead guideline recommends 2–4 paragraphs depending on the article length, but judgment is more important than counting. Are each of the significant topics that you noted mentioned in the lead? If the answer to each of these questions is "yes", then the article probably meets the guideline. If not, you may be able to fix it yourself by summarizing the article. If you can't, then it suggests that there are not only problems with the lead, but also the rest of the article. That is the beauty of Wikipedia:Lead section. Finally, there isn't universal agreement on whether the lead should contain inline citations. As long as the material in the lead is developed and cited elsewhere in the article, then inline citation is not required. There are exceptions, the most significant being quotations and controversial material about living persons. Good luck helping more articles meet this important criterion! From the Editors Well, this is somewhat GA-related but at the same time not totally GA-related. However, I think this is important. Thanks to everyone who supported me at my 2nd RfA. It passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. As many are impressed by my work in Good Articles processes, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone giving me a very enjoyable time at GA. There are 2 people that I want to explicitly say thank you to. They are Nehrams2020 and Epbr123. They patiently taught me how to do GA reviews properly in summer 2007. I couldn't achieve better without them. Now that I have the mop and the bucket, some of my time will be working on reducing Commons image backlog. Nevertheless, you will still see me once in a while in matters related to GA. 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) Geometry guy (News 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 |

I don't understand why you'd remove an IP because it wasn't "recently warned" when it was the same person who was warned last time. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 13:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Really, because after a month between edits, there is no evidence of that. Most IP addresses change more often then that. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 13:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

My bad. I thought this was a different IP. Sorry! The Evil Spartan ( talk) 14:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry for the bad tone, BTW. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 14:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Is The Evil Spartan saying I am Skibaby? What is going on? The comment Evil Spartan has left on my Talk page is very confusing. I have not been on WP very long, and I am certainly not a vandal. I work hard at these edits, and this flippant comment is no fun, unless The Evil Spartan is serious, and then we have some serious hacking to look into. I use Sprint PCS from San Diego, and I am unaware of anyone having access to my Sprint account and certainly not to my computer from which I edit. Nukeh ( talk) 19:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Who cares about your stupid bathrobe!And I apoliges to Hammer1980,And man if this block was still goin on,you would've blocked me on my birthday!And I didnt do no "Sock Puppets".JUST GO AND NEVER COME BACK!!! - User:Solo28 ( What's up Doc?)

You're no fun today.  :) After that Big Al character spent three months running roughshod on this site, a kick in the hindquarters on his way out the door is the least we can do. IMO, we need to stop taking the moral high ground regarding idiots like that and show the world that they are, in fact, idiots. NPP is stressful enough with a never-ending supply of similar idiots who are all to happy to take over. To thumb our noses at a particularly fine example of the breed is a nice way to relieve the tension. Just my two cents'. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 19:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Eh. One could say that taunting him in that way is only feeding a troll and will likely inspire him to try harder to be a pain in the ass. If you just ignore him, he is more likely to go away. There are many other ways of relieving stress. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 19:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

ROTFLMAO!  :)) Oh, those links are priceless! You're right; leave us not to feed yonder trolls. The guy just torqued me off and anger got the best of me. As for me, it would appear that I have my choice of stress relievers...ah, what a beautiful predicament...-- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 22:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello. I was wondering why User:Jkaharper was blocked and why Category:Supporters of gay marriage was deleted.

The biographies, such as Al Sharpton, mention support for gay marriage (see Al Sharpton#Gay rights). Where is the WP:BLP violation?

Granted, User:Jkaharper shouldn't have been reverting without an edit summary, but he was not engaged in vandalism. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 22:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

It wasn't about the Al Sharpton issue. The addition of people to LGBT categories is a common way of violating BLP; especially if such additions are unreferenced. If you feel these additions were done in good faith, feel free to unblock him. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 23:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

If I were an admin, I would. I think that User:Jkaharper's edits were inappropriately characterized as vandalism. Two of the three articles cited as examples of "vandalism" have lengthy, and well-sourced, quotes from the subjects in support of gay marriage. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 00:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

If he wants an unblock, he can request it. Again, I didn't not block him blindly just because someone used the word vandalism in a warning or an edit summary. I investigated his contributions, found them to be in violation of WP:BLP, which has nothing to do with vandalism, and I blocked him for that. People are blocked for many more reasons that vandalism, and admins such as myself take our jobs seriously and fully investigate all users that come to our attention. If you wish to have the block reviewed by admins, please post a notice at WP:ANI and see if another admin wishes to review the block. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 00:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Okay. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 00:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I have had to remove several reports at WP:AIV which do not comply with the guidelines. Please take some time to read the boilerplate at the top of WP:AIV as well as Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism. Please note that you must demonstrate that you have exhausted all other attempts at getting a user to stop problematic edits BEFORE they will be blocked. Try leaving a friendly, handwritten note on their talk page explaining what they are doing wrong. If that doesn't work, leave a sterner warning. Users that have not been warned multiple times, and given ample opportunity to correct their own behavior are not likely to be blocked. Blocking is the last resort, not the first, when dealing with problematic editors. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 02:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Perhaps Wikifan51893 ( talk · contribs) is not a vandal account as I've thought, however, 8HRE ( talk · contribs) appears to be a sock or troll. Or else, how would the user know me? Did you take a good look at 8HRE's contributions? Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 02:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

If he is a sockpuppet, the proper place to report him is at WP:SSP or perhaps WP:ANI. Unfortunately, WP:AIV is not set up to handle such requests. AIV has a very limited usage, for such situations where no investigation is needed by admins, and for cases of obvious and repeated vandalism where other measures have not worked. For issues that are not a quick "check and block" situation, or where concerns require a lengthy explanation or considerable investigation by admins, then other venues are more appropriate. I will not say one way or the other whether 8HRE deserves to be blocked or not; but AIV is not the correct mechanism to deal with sockpuppetry problems. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 02:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

That's understandable, don't know why I didn't think of those better options. I talked to another sysop about the editor, who said they'd watch him/her, but I'd rather go ahead and leave a quick comment on WP:AN/I. Thanks, Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 02:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Fully protected for a period of forever. After forever the page will be automatically unprotected . . . . . oh you make me laugh :P Tiptoety ^talk 05:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, you know, after Judgement Day, he can edit again... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 05:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi. I'm grateful to you for unblocking me and have a couple of requests. You wrote on the box that unblocks me on my page that you don't believe me when I say I haven't edited Wikipedia before. I'm assuming this means you're saying I'm lying, but what you've written isn't true, I already said that I have edited Wikipedia before, just read the bit above the box. Could you change what you've written so that it's not accusing me of lying by saying I haven't edited Wikipedia. Sure, accuse me of lying, I don't mind that but just don't accuse me of lying by saying something that isn't true about me when you can see it's not true by reading what I wrote. The bit where I said that I have edited Wikipedia is just above what you've written if you need to see it. I'm not accusing you of anything so please don't ban me, I'm just asking that what you wrote about me in the box is true. The other request is about the comment I wanted to leave on Jimbo's talk page. I got banned because I left the comment. Is there somewhere I can get my comment approved so I can leave it or someone that can give me permission to leave the comment or tell me how to change it so I won't get banned. Thanks for your help AntHolnes ( talk) 08:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

You've been unblocked. I don't really care about the rest of this. Have fun editing articles. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 11:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

OK I understand, thanks for replying and thanks for unblocking me. Could you at least let me know what I can do about it, even if you don't care. You're the one that wrote it you see. You've written in a big box on my page that I'm a liar because I said I never edited Wikipedia. Above that I had already written prior to that in plain words that I have edited Wikipedia. Don't you feel a responsibility to be accurate? Anyone else that sees that is going to believe that I'm a liar because I said that I haven't edited Wikipedia before, when I never said that. They won't like me and they'll ban me again because you've put that I'm a liar on my page. I need to do something about that or I'll be banned again There must be someone that can do something about it, it's obviously and provably not true AntHolnes ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Sure. I'll help you set up an archive for your talk page. It'll just take a second. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 15:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I should have done that myself, except I suppose I was hoping you would feel some responsibility for claiming something about me that is obviously not accurate when you read a sentence just a few centimeters above it. Never mind, you've tried as best you felt you could, for which I really am grateful. AntHolnes ( talk) 01:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Guess who is back? Since this is a persistent bugger, what else can be done? I've PPed Epcot for the time being. seicer | talk | contribs 22:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

JUst semiprotect all of the pages he hits. Given the nature of his IP, its our only recourse. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 22:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I've added this new IP to the puppet case, but this will just get old. I'm researching if there's yet another registered account involved, based on articles edited and same M.O. as presented here. Thank you both for your help. -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 22:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Just looking for any comment on this user's current unblock request. They're claiming it was a friend (difficult to prove or disprove) and pointing out that they've had a history of helpful edits in the past (which seems to be true). Contribs date back to 2006, at least, even if there's not a lot of them. Took a quick look and didn't see any obvious sock farm, but you may know more about this than I do. Might we shorten the block from indef, perhaps? – Luna Santin ( talk) 23:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for having a look. – Luna Santin ( talk) 05:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

		The WikiProject Films Award
		I, twelsht ( talk) 05:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC), hereby award Jayron32 the WikiProject Films Award for his/her valued contibutions to WikiProject Films. Thank you for your assistance on Jack Warner. reply Awarded 05:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

THANKS! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 20:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your sensible comment on the issue. -- Avinesh Jose  T  06:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The page that you deleted was a band that had notability, if you had cared to read it!

Under WP:BAND: "6 - Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. "

Mike Marsh is the drummer of the band Dashboard Confessional, who are a notable band, therefor, The Agency IS a notable band on Wikipedia! -- HitchhikerGriff ( talk) 21:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

OK. Do you feel better now? -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 13:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Much! Alright. Maybe I overreacted a bit! HitchhikerGriff ( talk) 16:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for blocking User:216.11.243.60. I was thinking about notifying an admin when I saw you'd done it already! Nunquam Dormio ( talk) 13:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I had blocked that IP earlier, and had it on my watchlist. As the problems continued unabated, a long block was unfortunately necessary. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 14:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I have responded on the page where I was reported. I really wasn't trying to cause a problem. I have learned that editors are very touchy about that article and don't really read edit summaries or even the talk page. I did revert a few times before I was told about that article being sensitive. I will not revert more than once there per day going forward. Thanks again. -- 70.109.223.188 ( talk) 14:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

If that is the guidline then why don't the Orlando resorts say the specific city they are in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.224.123 ( talk) 18:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

If you look at the category Category:Casinos_in_Las_Vegas, you'll see that regardless of the casino's mailing address, they're still listed as being in Las Vegas for sake of the category. If this is not what you are looking for, then you will need to be more specific with your question. I also recommend that if you have a specific question that it is better to ask it on a single appropriate page rather than to post the same question on multiple user's talk pages. SpikeJones ( talk) 18:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I am not making any decision in this area. 74.163.224.123/Miamiboyzinhere is being blocked because he pushes his version of the article without discussing it on the talk page. He may have a good arguement, and his version may be right, however since he refuses to behave in a cooperative manner, his arguements will continue to be ignored. Remember, Miamiboyzinhere, you aren't be blocked for what you are trying to add to the articles, you are being blocked for your behavior. If your behavior does not change, you will continue to be blocked. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 05:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

poking you since you appear to be online. I just did the re-direct for this AfD since it appeared logical and there appear to have been some issues with the nom/nominator (see the other AfDs and apparently s/he's banned (? don't get that if s/he's posting). At any rate I don't feel right doing a non-admin close of an AfD that isn't mine, but I'm not sure what should be done now since I did the redirect and it certainly doesn't need to run for 5 days and clutter an already crowded Afd. Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARI ^{My story} _{Tell me yours} 05:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

And done... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 05:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARI ^{My story} _{Tell me yours} 05:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello there, I notice you've edited the Wake County article in the past (and I see you live in my old hometown, Raleigh). If you get really bored, would you mind scanning the article to see where improvements could be made? I've recently added alot to the article and am looking for some feedback from an experienced user. The history sections I marked for expansion will be fixed later this week. I e-mailed the Wake County Historical Society and asked for some help with those sections. I can't seem to find a web source for information dealing with the 19th and 20th centuries. Anyway, if you get a chance to read it that would be cool. Thanks. AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk) 05:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Just a reminder, don't forget to block the other socks as well. Thanks for your help with the situation. Cheers!!! Baegis ( talk) 05:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Someone (Yamla I think) already picked those off a while ago. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 05:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

After a considerable revamp I've renominated Nahuatl for GA status. If you have the time I'd appreciate if you'd give it a review. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 12:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Dude, srs. That's not helping. XD I'm in such a bad mood, the giggles help, but I'm sure they'll come back on us. You really should join IRC, if for no other reason than to partake in the hilarity that is the BRC chan, however, you'd like all the admin chat, too, I'm sure. TINC, Lara ❤ Love 14:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, well sometimes people need to take themselves less seriously. Him included. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 14:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I confirm that my freenode nick is Jayron32 -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC) try again... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

This Diff would seem to be counter to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Thoughts? Jeepday ( talk) 02:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• Response at my talk Jeepday ( talk) 02:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
• Response Jeepday ( talk) 02:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
• Posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IP Blanking their talk page Jeepday ( talk) 03:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Do you kow if you are funded by HD? Please encrupt and provide key. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nukeh ( talk • contribs) 06:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I don't have any records on or recollection of it any more - it was almost 2 years ago. However, that fact that he would create the account on May 3 2006 and not use it until March 5 2008 is very odd, don't you think? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Please go ahead and unblock. I understand where he's coming from, so let's see how he does. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you, but I do not understand. Nukeh ( talk) 06:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Ok, unless I've lost my mind, I thought this response to your question should be clear. Am I missing something? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

You haven't lost your mind. I have. Never mind me, I'm an idiot. Carry on! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Bah, I protected the page while you were typing. I hope you don't mind ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Be my guest. He has nothing useful to add... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Basically, no clearing anything, including rejected stuff on Article Discussion pages, self contributed. Always archive you own User Talk Page before nuking it. Wave Power seems a little to serious for me, so I think I will edit this for a while: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_Abraham_Lincoln Nukeh ( talk) 18:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Slakr's Thumbs Up Award For your excellent contributions, I hereby award you this thumbs up. Well, actually it's a dismembered hand with its thumb pointing upwards, which is kind of weird when you think about it, but it's the thought that counts, right? :P Anyway, great job on all of the unblock requests, fighting vandals, speedy deletes, and, well, everything. Plus, you've got a killer bathrobe. :) Thanks for helping out. Keep up the great work =) -- slakr\  talk / 04:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, thanks for the thanks! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 16:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The user is fighting all over Office related articles. He honestly doesn't seem quite able to understand what we're explaining to him. Already off of his block: 1) User renames a section 2) hal changes it back and I warned him for that. Do some people never learn? Your call on what to do... I'm fed up with trying to explain things. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 09:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Additional note - I've left edit war warnings on the Standardization of Office Open XML and Office Open XML articles. It's the same gang of users in a content dispute (Article bans, anyone?). I feel outnumbered and as if my policy/guideline rantings just aren't getting through to anyone... I'm exhausted. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 12:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Take this up at WP:ANI to get additional support for the article bans and/or wider blocks on all involved parties. I will support any reasonable proposal you give there to curb this problem. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 16:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron32, This message is to inform you that I recently nominated Jack Warner as a featured article candidate. Your comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, again, for your review of the article, which inspired a substantial reworking of the lead and reorganization of the body. Cheers, -- twelsht ( talk) 09:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

He stopped eleven minutes before final warning. Bad AIV report, please consider undoing. - Revolving Bugbear 18:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

He also has one real edit. - Revolving Bugbear 18:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Done. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 18:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron: I'm wondering if it would be okay with you if I quote you in a dispatch on peer review for next week's issue of the Wikipedia Signpost. Please follow the link to see the draft, and the quote I have in mind. Thanks, Geometry guy 18:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Good deal! Go ahead and quote me. If you need anything else, just let me know! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 18:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Cheers Jayron! Geometry guy 18:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

This guy is claiming that you blocked him before, any idea what he's talking about? Dreadstar † 02:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

No worries, the guy was blocked indefinitely for abusing socks, evading blocks and generally tedentious editing. At least three unblock requests were denied and his userpages protected for unblock abuse. You done good...;) Dreadstar † 20:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron, you think you could take another look at that article and give me a few tips for improvement? I wish to take it to FAC soon, so any comments would help me now, thanks! The Dominator ( talk) 02:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron, you left me a note about my editing. A single purpose IP account reverted a number of my edits without edit summaries, so I considered this vandalism. Is that not correct? If so I apologize. I have been working on correcting nationality in the lead sentence of biograpahies. Can you please look at my edits and see if you agree or not? I am trying to use edit summaries and the talk pages. Thank you. -- 70.109.223.188 ( talk) 15:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, on the page you said the Lifetime Achievement & Non-performer categories were merged. However, the source you provided only said the non-performers one was renamed, and the rest of the official site gives no indication of a merge of the two categories. Is there something I'm missing? -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 19:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

It is a bit of a tricky issue. As far as I can tell, the achievement category no longer exists and for a while seems to have functioned as the non-performer category. However, I think the two sections should remain seperate for the time being as they are currently recognized as seperate categories on the official website. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 02:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

OK, if Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism isn't the place to report it, then what is the correct place? Thanks. -- Dougie WII ( talk) 03:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I was just looking through the rules. Thought the Arbitration Committee might be interested in their actions. Sent an email to the arb com and put them on notice for BITE'ng me. Anyways, thanks for caring man. InvisibleDiplomat ( talk) 06:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Seriously. The arbcom has better things to do than to deal with this. Ryan and Metros have done nothing wrong, and this line of action is sure to go poorly for you. Just go back to editing articles, and let the whole thing drop. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 06:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Please keep an eye on this article for slow moving sockpuppetry and libelous allegations. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 08:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Blocked as a Justjihad sock. Keep me aprised if similar problems come back again. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 12:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for understanding and removing the block. Im glad this situation is behind us and the vandals have been stopped.-- L33t-Geek ( talk) 16:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Indeed. Please return to civil, uncontroversial editing. Good day. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Can yo explain the following?Y

"Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of IP REDACTED FOR PRIVACY REASONS lifted or expired."

I am apalled by the amount that in going on in hidden emails here. There is no transparency at all, and given the character involved I have every right to be 100% paranoid. He is "requesting" to all and sundry it seems. My belief in Wikipedia is dwindling with each event here. The language in the "reason(s)" above is impossible to find any meaning in. EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT IT MEANS!!!????! -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 17:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Another admin lifted the direct block, but forgot to lift the autoblock. You are going to have to talk to Rlverse or Dreadstar, who ACTUALLY unblocked him. I have no idea other than that. Good luck. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

There was 15 minutes left in the block. What was the point of the unblock? It's not like he's going to stop complaining or anything... Nishkid64 _{( Make articles, not love)} 17:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Of all things, now he probably thinks that you support his side. Nishkid64 _{( Make articles, not love)} 17:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

If he continues to be disruptive, I will personally reblock him myself again. Just let me know. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for assuming good faith (clearly, unlike certain others) in removing the block. Given that this action was taken before the block expired and appears to be in entire agreement with the reasons for my request, I have reconsidered. I am postponing the action I initially intended on taking immediately against the admin who enforced the unreasonably unnecessary block. Hopefully, this action will not be necessary at all in the future. However, if the admin continues to make similarly poor decisions, or continues to assume bad-faith (as above) and the like, then I will not hesitate to proceed as I had planned earlier to review his adminship, and this incident will be used as evidence. Due to the circumstances surrounding this case, I think this is quite a reasonable step. Still, I would like to thank you for your time, patience and understanding in fulfilling my request. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 02:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Honest to God. I was just screwing with you. I think you've been totally unreasonable, and I think the block was fully justified. I fully support Nishkid's block, and if I were him I would reinstate it. I only unblocked you because I thought it would be silly to remove the block 5 minutes before it expired. Don't take it as anything besides me being a dick... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 02:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

fwiw, Ncmvocalist is back rv warring minutes/hours after coming back. He's warring on Carnatic music - an article on which he already has a 3rr vio in the past. Please check his contribs. Thanks. Sarvagnya 03:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Heh, that was a fast reblock. Nishkid64 _{( Make articles, not love)} 04:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I was observing what is occurring re: this. I know you're an administrator and know the policies quite well, but I still wanted to say that I was the person who first noticed the use of Slim Virgin's page when I went to the the user's page to leave a message and found it to be quite confusing. WP:Harass says "Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons" which is what it initially did until I sorted out what had happened. I couldn't understand why an administrator would purposely insert a fragment like "is also a prominent substance abuser" into the lead sentence of an article. WP:Harass also says "There is no way to spell out all the behaviors that can be considered harassment from the early incubation of a pattern to an unmistakable offense" and since Slim Virgin approached this user first and removed her page material, and when it was removed again by Crum375, the edit summary specifically said "This is a form of harassment -- please stop." AFP was aware it was objectionable, thus negating any argument that he/she has violated no policy. I admit that my own experience with this user wasn't the best, it also tended to lean toward the disregard of requests and perhaps purposefully evasion of actual issues. Thanks. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 05:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey, Jayron. IPs can't be autoblocked, so this is probably one of my Shankbone rangeblocks. I'll check it out. east.718 at 06:15, March 13, 2008

I know you remember me. Hehe! I changed my name. See my page, and I think you'll recognize who it is. How are you doing, by the way? おべんとう むすび ( Contributions) 08:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I saw you changed your name. DOing pretty good here myself! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 13:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear Jayron, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight. I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community. I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Pretty flower, not goat-fucking owl. Sorry, maybe next time. ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 12:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• Peer review for Homerun (film): I am the primary contributor to this article and am aiming for GA status; I do not intend to take this article through the endless nitpicking and incivility that is FAC. This article has already received two reviews; you may wish to do the other one first.
• Peer review for Flag of Singapore: The primary contributor, Jacklee has not edited the article recently. Although I am currently aiming for GA status, this article is a potential National Day Main Page FA, so review with FAC in mind.

When you have the time, please read the articles and post your feedback at the peer reviews. Thanks.

-- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 15:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

LOL, I do believe that's the first time in my life I've ever been called a "zealous Zionist." Funny, just a couple weeks ago I was accused of "spreading anti-Semitic hate speech." Sometimes you just gotta laugh ... And thanks for the assist; I don't feel so bad about blocking that one right off any more. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, we don't need that shit around anymore. I protected his talk page and said "Shalom" to that tool... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 16:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Please see User_talk:The_Evil_Spartan#Possible_3RR_block_circumvention_by_Gni. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 17:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

This user has been unblocked due to my request. Just thought you should know. Dusti ^{talk to me} 17:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

All good man. You were the wronged party, so it is entirely up to you... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 18:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Its all good. I know who did it and they were just joking. Its all moot. Dusti ^{talk to me} 18:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

After 2 weeks on Wave Power, it is fairly clear that page is very important to Alternative Energy and it needs to be re-written to bring it up to speed and exceed the Discovery Channel. No joke, I just added 2 patents to the main article, tracked the assignee, and saw their work on a Discovery clip. Fabulous stuff. Given that I am conflicted with www.gewp.org , what can we (mouse in my pocket) / I do to help re-write the article and push it up in importance in the appropriate portals? Not only am I conflicted with gewp, but I am running Google Adwords on the keywords "alternative energy" and "wave power", world-wide. That's half my income, so you might be able to see that I am very serious about doing anything I can to head off (buzz words deleted) over energy. Nukeh ( talk) 20:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Did you just say that you have a financial interest in seeing this article's position in search engine's improved, and that is your motivation for editing it in a certain way? I just want to be clear on that. Please clarify -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 20:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I am financially conflicted in the opposite manner as normally encountered: My work for gewp.org is pro bono and gewp.org itself places all new technology into the public domain, creating a patent bar immediately upon publication. My payment for AdWords is a charitable contribution to gewp, and gewp is a 501(c)3 nonprofit in formation. I do this as an experienced inventor in biotechnology, having ~600 uspto.gov patent references. One of my patents was litigated through three levels of court up to the CA Supreme Court in 2006, and the award was a record: $34.5M. I also figure the US government has ~ $50M in me via grants and training over a 30 year period. Given the status of energy in our world, and some of the obvious consequences for the future (war, stagflation, greenhouse, nuclear proliferation, etc.), I feel that I have no choice but to act in a charitable manner as an inventor. My affiliations are exclusively to www.gewp.org, and other charitable organizations, having retired from all other work years ago. I have no financial interest in anything except blinded CA State bonds which are the current source of my charitable giving. Nukeh ( talk) 02:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Still, you have, as you say, a vested interest in pushing certain things up in importance in appropriate portals; which to me means that your editing is based on search engine hits and NOT on producing the best encyclopedia. That is a conflict of interest of the WORST kind, regardless of whatever financial stake you have in the matter. The fact remains that you aren't interested in creating balanced, neutral, or accurate articles, only in playing the Google game. That is directly counter to Wikipedia's core mission. You should seriously reconsider your motivation here at Wikipedia... Your actions will likely get you into trouble. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

If the wave power article is not as current as a Discovery program, and someone has blanketed the article with wave gizmos that consist of 404's and "contact the company for more information", why would you question my philanthropic motives? Every day, I am bidding directly against Chevron and others to increase traffic on keywords such as "alternative energy".

We are all in trouble: The fact of the matter is that it is now feasible to convert either to solar or wave power for a Hydrogen economy. The references are on www.gewp.org. These references need to be on WP, because WP is seen as more authoritative than gewp.

Here is another problem: It appears that there is no legitimate purpose for new nuclear plants if solar and/or wave is adequate. If that becomes both USA domestic and foreign policy, then we are in a strong position to deter nuclear proliferation via reactors constructed on the premise of energy supply. However, to say that solar and / or wave power is adequately sufficient to power all of mankind at 100 terawatts is also to say that the oil industry is condemned.

Please direct me to the appropriate WP rules for a sole inventor, sole source, philanthropist who wishes to contribute to articles. Nukeh ( talk) 05:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

You are argueing like I care about the specifics of the situation. As a Wikipedia administrator, I am officially neutral on those issues, and take the official position of not caring at ALL about this information. However, you REALLY should read WP:COI and take it to heart, because it clearly looks like you have a conflict of interest in the articles in question...-- Jayron32. talk. contribs 05:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you. WP:COI is a specific instruction that I will read and follow. Nukeh ( talk) 05:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC) I should add that I am potentially conflicted by [1], too. Nukeh ( talk) 05:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I have read conflict of interest:

Some editors declare an interest in a particular topic area. They do this in various ways. Many Wikipedians show their allegiances and affiliations on their user pages. You may choose to reveal something about yourself in a talk page discussion. Disclaimer: Wikipedia gives no advice about whether or how to use its pages to post personal details. This guideline only raises some pros and cons.

Advantages:

By declaring an interest, you pre-empt anyone outing you or questioning your good faith.

Most editors will appreciate your honesty.

You lay the basis for requesting help from others to post material for you, or to review material you wish to post yourself.

So, I believe I am in compliance, and no one seems to understand: "requesting help from others to post material for you". Nukeh ( talk) 05:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, but I'm not really interested in posting the material for you. Try the talk page of the relevent articles. Someone there may be able to vett the information you wish to add, and be willing to help out. I'm just not that interested myself... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 05:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Jayron32, I hope you'll reconsider what you wrote here: "Actually, having looked over the whole of the changes to the article, it is you who proprose the major changes while several other editors seem to independently ALL disagree with your changes, and wish to maintain the article's status quo."

The major edit which was being battled over was the insertion into the first sentence of the judgment that CAMERA is pro-Israel (as opposed to "is cited as pro-Israel," which appears in a later sentence and is obviously accurate.) For almost the entire history of this article, there was no such assertion in the first sentence. It was added quite recently, and I was trying to revert to the previous status quo -- while discussing on the discussion page. The other editors would revert this change immediately, and often wouldn't engage in real discussion that addresses specifics questions I raised in the discussion section. Now, it may be true that 3 or 4 editors -- whose biases I won't bother to discuss -- disagreed with me. But that doesn't seem to be a reason to block me, remove the 'neutrality disputed' tag (not you, but the other administrator), and allow the others free reign to make their one-sided edits. (I should note also that there was someone else who backed my view, but he, too was ignored. Even Nagle, who doesn't tend to agree with me on this article, was ignored when he proposed compromise language. Now a new person [canadamonkey or something like that] is proposing compromise language, and is being ignored. So what can be done?) Thanks for your comments. Gni ( talk) 03:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

One more thing, as an aside -- I wouldn't exactly call this morning's edits 'sock abuse.' They were me making changes before realizing I wasn't logged on, as I often do. Only when I realized this and logged on, at which point I saw that I was blocked. Gni ( talk) 03:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Eh... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

This user has resumed edit warring with a vengeance. Boodlesthecat ( talk) 21:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't appreciate Boodlesthecat's uncivil attempt at defaming me. He apparently feels it's appropriate to level charges of "edit warring" at anyone whose edits he doesn't like. If anyone is warring, it is him, as he seems to be following my history and undoing any edits I make on any site. With the exception of the one 3R slip up, my edits are fully within the spirit and letter of wikipedia's guidelines -- though apparently not in accord with Boodles' politics -- so I would appreciate it if Boodlesthecat would stop his harassment, and maybe even, if this isn't asking too much, if he would start paying attention to various people's compromise proposals on the discussion pages instead of reflexively undoing any changes he doesn't like. Gni ( talk) 21:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply

This is the sound of me not caring... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 23:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I have been staring at that for like an hour now myself trying to figure it out......hmm...I will be interested to see what the issue is. Watch it will be something really obvious..lol Tiptoety ^talk 05:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I unblocked her earlier today... there WAS a legitimate autoblock on her, which I lifted. And she STILL says she can't edit. Could it MAYBE be on her end, like a browser cache that needs clearing? -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 05:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I have no idea, this is an interesting puzzle, i just really wish I could solve it! Hm.... *think* *think* *think* Tiptoety ^talk 05:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, at least we know it is not the browser cache [2]. This just keeps getting more "wicked bizz-ah". Tiptoety ^talk

It appears that the autoblock was due to User:DATBUS, and User:Beatmakerz where both socks of User:BGMNYC and where both blocked with autoblock enabled. Also it appears the User:Seicer is the blocking admin, when the unblock request says it is User:Jehochman. Tiptoety ^talk 06:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

That did it. Thank you Jayron32, Tiptoety and B, you are each both brilliant and more importantly, kind gentleman. ShirleyPartridge ( talk) 06:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hurrah! Tiptoety ^talk 06:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

here. I feel so honored that the IP was so attached to a hoax article :) TRAVELLINGCARI ^{My story} _{Tell me yours} 11:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

i am talking on behalf inspiron600m's accout what does sock puppet mean, and why was he blocked for it Inspiron6m ( talk) 14:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The block was on an IP that is used by all public libraries in Washington, D. C. It is a bit frustrating to be blocked in a situation like that one. Thanks. -- BRG ( talk) 18:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I understand your frustration. Unfortunately, people continue to abuse, disrupt and use Wikipedia for their own perverse purposes... The day they stop is the day that unfortunate collateral damage like your case stops also. I apologize that you got caught up in that. It happens and it sucks, and I am just glad we got it cleared up... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 18:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, I have made a proposal that no peer review request be archived without some response. To aid in this, there is a new list of PR requests at least one week old that have had no repsonses beyond a semi-automated peer review. This list is at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog.

There are just over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, so I figure if each of these volunteers reviewed just one or two PR requests without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog (as there have been 2 or 3 such unanswered requests a day on average).

If you would be able to help out with a review or two a month from the "no responses" backlog list that would be great (and much appreciated). Please discuss questions, comments, or ideas at the PR talk page and thanks in advance for your help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron32, Thanks, again, for your feedback and support on Jack Warner. Your comments certainly improved the article, and I wanted to let you know that it was recently promoted to FA status. With appreciation, -- twelsht ( talk) 04:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I will let you down! 81.149.250.228 ( talk) 08:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply

\o/ Yay for him letting you down! Lara ❤ Love 16:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I have pretty low standards. I am quite hard to let down... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 23:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Looks like we may have an IP address used for frequent socking for someone you blocked: see unblock requests on User talk:Cage with no bars.. 71.58.56.181 ( talk) 15:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I liked your phrasing on the unblock of the Wooden guy. Nice, firm yet conciliatory; well done! -- Orange Mike | Talk 21:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 23:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

You might want to rethink that warning you gave this user as AGAIN he's recreated the article Kevin Parcell Wildthing61476 ( talk) 17:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Normally, I would have given her the full panoply of warnings; you will notice that I only blocked her briefly. But the "article" about herself was so shameless and brazen that I felt we had to send her a message. -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Take a look at her userpage! -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply

but I replied to your oppose here. I'd be interested in your thoughts (here, there, or anywhere. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, so I guess the Wake County Historical Society never checks their e-mail or else given their organization name, they're stuck somewhere in history and still use the Pony Express. ;-) They never responded about my inquiry for historical information that I mentioned to you a few weeks ago. I'm going to head over to the Georgetown library or some other library this week and ask about that book exchange program you mentioned. I decided to work on the Raleigh history section until then. AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk) 03:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello Jayron,

I am editing an article of MyTino and adding more references to it. Please give me some time.

Thanks for you understanding.

Aaron

Please forgive me for all this; I am nearly in tears with stress. Let me explain myself in point form; that might make it more intelligible:

• I saw in the AIV that he reported a user for being a sockpuppet, and provided an example (the page is on my watchlist).
• I went to him, and explained that I didn't understand why it made the user a sock.
• He explained, but I still didn't get it. This went on for some time.
• He finally got angry, and told me to go away.
• It's my own fault, but I have an obsessive desire for the last word, and this occured, but he removed the comment.
• I felt offended by this, since I tried to be polite, and counter-attacked by reporting him to AIV.
• Another user removed that, and directed me to the right place to report supposed personal attacks.
• This whole ordeal went as far as you know it, and I explained myself again. He removed it again.
• You warned me about where this could head, and now I've come to you.

Please understand that I didn't mean to harass AgnosticPreachersKid; I've been through this before, and have tried to learn from my past experiences. I just wanted to explain myself, so I didn't look like I had no basis for my original comments. He might listen to you; please go to his talkpage and deliver this message to him, for I nearly stroked out with anger and distress (and the melodrama is in fact accurate). It would make me feel a lot happier and a lot more relaxed if you did. Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 04:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

If that's the best thing that can be done, well, O.K. And I'm sorry if the usersubpage was inappropriate; I meant for it to look at all my past bad situations in a lighter mood. Thank you for your consolation; I can't guaruntee it'll always be so, but for now you've earned my respect as a Wikipedian. Thank you. Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 04:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I think that's a wonderful idea. One more thanks to you, and let's close this chapter at that! Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 04:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

-- Peter cohen ( talk) 05:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

No problemo! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 05:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh Jayron, please put an end to this. User:AgnosticPreachersKid won't let go, and has said I'm a sockpuppet! I don't know if you were in on that or not, but I swear to you, as God is my witness, I am not! I have never had an account other than that of "User:Wilhelmina Will", and the IP address I had before I registered, which I since have not used. I said I would leave him alone, and thus have kept true to my word, please get him to leave me alone! Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 07:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Frankenstein says, "Yeah Jayron, Wilhilmenia has 'really' left me alone" AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk) 07:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I said if you would leave me alone as well. Which you have not done. And I said I wouldn't speak to you on your usertalkpage. Unless you're the sockpuppet here, this ain't your usertalkpage. Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 07:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

(Jayron, I'll stop posting after this so as not to spill over this discussion on your page) You added my name before I posted that sock case. If you want to talk about this, do it on the sock case page, not here. AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk) 07:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

To Wilhelminia: Please don't litter my talk page with this drivel. I am sorry to get rude at this point, but this is really getting bothersome. Quite frankly, I had my suspicions of your sockpuppetry based on some very confusing edits you and several IPs made in short order. This goes beyond coincidence... Really, you doth protest too much, methinks... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 16:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

He's back, now attempting to delete the article we won't let him edit. Kww ( talk) 16:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks. He's keeping my sockhammer busy. Just keep me notified when he comes back... I will block his socks again. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 16:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

That's teamwork - I started by posting the unblock template then went to unblock, whereas you'd unblocked and were on your way to post the template. I guess we crossed somewhere in the middle. _GB ^{T/ C} 18:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Great work man. I noticed that too! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 18:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Mooch ass grassy ass! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 19:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Gni has relaunched his contentious edit warring and spamming for CAMERA. I did try to remind him of the advice from admins to step away, to no avail. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The dif you provided is on the talk page of the article, and actually looks like he's trying to work it out. Now, don't we WANT editors to use talk pages to discuss problems? He looks like, in this one case, he is doing what he is supposed to, which is to achieve consenus and compromise on talk pages... Unless you have additional evidence that he is edit warring (and, for example, you AREN'T) then please provide those difs... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 20:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

You're right, probably not edit warring per se, but more attempts at putting in the organizations spin with unreliable sources and false claims of consensus and compromise. I suppose I was so flabbergasted with seeing him come roaring back with the spin doctoring even with the COIN thing happening an the advice to stay away from the article that it seemed like a declaration of war. I'm better now. thanks. Good night. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi there I was editing the page Majority Muslim countries by editing it with correct approximate percentages of the countries from recent census's as the sources, but after the edits I have made to the article I was told by the user 'Angelo De La Paz' that I have violated and has warned me that I will be blocked from editing but he has no right to tell me that - I have not violated and he is not an Admin to decide this, please view this issue please, Thankyou Admin! Moshino31 ( talk) 21:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Angelo De La Paz to Moshino31: 20 March 2008

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Majority Muslim countries, you will be blocked from editing. Angelo De La Paz ( talk) 18:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• Really? I need to hear your opinions and weigh this article: Majority Muslim countries, crated by Moshino31 who is a Muslim and extreme pro-Islam. I have added some tags on this article because it's lacking many sources, violated NPOV and the neutrality is in dispute...and he's called my revisions as vandalism in my Talk Page. Let's see the different between my revision and his revision here and its talk page so you can see how Mohshin pro-Islam and as you can see in his early version of User Page, he could be a Muslim extremist [3]

Please weigh it as soon as possible. Thank you so much and have a nice day! Angelo De La Paz ( talk) 21:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

A Muslim extremist by editing a poxy percentage facts of an article based on Muslim countries - geneius mate! Suddenly Im an extremist! Moshino31 ( talk) 21:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh yes! You did because you was not used all estimates from the source of CIA Factbook only (you didn't added the lower estimates of Muslim percentage in some countries although it is from the same CIA Factbook) and you always choose the highest estimates of Muslim percentage. Here is my evidence [4].

Angelo De La Paz ( talk) 21:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Angelo De La Paz ( talk) 21:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

- I have just ratified the highest percentages available on the internet, I dont see a problem with that? Moshino31 ( talk) 22:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Ya! That is no problem with you who is a Muslim and pro-Islam but it's violated NPOV and you are promoting the Muslim strength. Angelo De La Paz ( talk) 22:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey! Keep this crap off of my talk page. If you guys need mediation or help, try WP:RFC or WP:3O or something. I'm not here to solve your childish disputes... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 12:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Yo, dude. We're going to FA on this. If you can either go over and make some improvements or do a PR or whatev, that'd be great! Lara ❤ Love 05:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for you help. Lara ❤ Love 17:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

You know I'm good for it. I will do what I can... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 18:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Al Siebert, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Siebert. Thank you. B. Wolterding ( talk) 15:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 2, Issue 3 • 22 March 2008 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors Coming and going	Features Scope debate causes issues A-class review sets new rule Three editors get triple crown award	State and national updates Leaderboard California Connecticut Kansas Michigan Nevada New Jersey New York Oklahoma Texas Utah Vermont Washington
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. — О бот ( т • ц) 21:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply

You threaten to block me because I used the explicative "hell" when I come to your page and you have the F word right on it? Okay then, I have changed it to "heck". -- Eckre ( talk) 00:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Nope... I never did such a thing. See your talk page for reply... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 00:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Is it civil for someone to go into someone's sandbox and delete their content? It's odd that if someone goes onto MY sandbox page and deletes MY test content, then I go to their page and tell them to bug off, I GET IN TROUBLE and have you telling me to be civil. Well hell, where on wikipedia CAN I go and test stuff without it being deleted? PLEASE ANSWER! Because I'd really like to know, I had been led to believe (Because I read it here on Wikipedia) that was the single and entire purpose of one's personal sandbox. So please, do tell. -- Eckre ( talk) 00:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

How do you know that my images have "bad" licensing info? You don't, because they are mine and I took them and I know the history and I know everything about it, and you don't. Others admins have suggested that I put them on my sandbox first, to test things out, good advice, they pointed me to how I can set up my own sandbox, and I did, all was perfect. So instead of shooting first, and never asking any questions later, here's a tip: The next time you're going to delete someone else's work 1. Check if it's on their sandbox, and if it is, it's probably best to leave it alone. Upon every image page, there is a link called "What pages this image links to" or something to that effect, where you can find out where the image is, and if it's on someone's sandbox or not. If it's located is someone's "/user/sandbox/" Please understand they are probably working on it, and the point of the wiki sandbox is to try stuff out, without rebuke. It doesn't have to be perfect, it's not even public. AND/OR 2. Use the discussion tab One of them is located at the top left of every page. If you look up at the top of this page, you will see one. The sandbox is where we are 100% allowed to test things, upload things, and adjust licensing and such later, when we decide what is the correct way to do things. Not everything has to be perfect for publication the second we put it on our own personal sandbox. Thank you for your understanding in this matter. /Discussion. -- Eckre ( talk) 20:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

for any insults I lofted your way during that process. 72.0.180.2 ( talk) 00:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply

No problem. I investigated the situation, and it was clear that the BLP issue in that case took precedence. Thanks for the apology, and next time, please do not assume that admins are out to get anyone... It just took me some time to investigate.... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 01:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure what you mean by "the BLP issue in that case took precedence". The blocking admin addressed and rejected the claim that the BLP exemption could be properly invoked in this edit, and his argument certainly seems sound to me. Policy says such claims are to be "narrowly construed", after all. (Looking as his contrib list it also appears to be his last word on the subject -- did you follow policy and contact him before lifting the block?) The way you left it it appears to me that 72etc may well conclude that his BLP claim was ultimately accepted. Nor did 72etc respond to what you said here, "...you were blocked for edit warring. You clearly were doing so, and I have seen no assurances that you intend to stop doing so."

I was not around for any of the discussion, and therefor did not rebut any of the false claims. E.g., 72etc claimed that his posting on the BLP noticeboard had not been replied to, helpfully supplying a redlink so that you could not easily check. Here is the actual link, [5] and you can see (and confirm in the edit history that the time stamps are accurate) that that was false. Also see [6] where I explain to him for the umpteenth time why failing to describe what Martin wrote and what Insight wrote clearly enough to see that they are different is a POV-advancing act. It is after all this that he says I "do not use talk". Only 108 edits to that particular article's talk page so far! [7]

I really think you got taken in. At the very least you should fill in the reason on the unblock template, which you left blank, with text that makes it clear that the BLP exemption was inapplicable and that that three reverts per article per 24h is an absolute upper limit in all except the narrowest, clearest, completely uncontroversial BLP vios. Andyvphil ( talk) 09:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply

And speaking of 72etc's expansive view of the powers granted him by BLP, what route would you suggest I pursue to prevent what I undid here? It went undetected for three days or so. I really shouldn't have to watch him for this. Andyvphil ( talk) 13:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Looks like they aren't giving up on this issue from what I see. Momusufan ( talk) 00:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd rather see him spending time here than wonder what the next sock is doing. Also, the next sock will have more fodder, if we take away all his recourse here. I don't see any reason to protect that page. Equazcion •✗/ C • 01:39, 23 Mar 2008 (UTC)

No, the next sock will be blocked immediately. I see no reason to continue to allow him an "outlet" to be disruptive. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 01:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply

An ongoing discussion on a single talk page doesn't constitute a disruption. They were expressly discussing the reasons for the block, "they" including admins. I don't think this was a good protect. No offense. Equazcion •✗/ C • 01:45, 23 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Then unprotect it then. I don't really care... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 01:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not an admin, but I'm flattered that you would assume so :) Equazcion •✗/ C • 01:56, 23 Mar 2008 (UTC)

It was improper for you to protect this Talk page, as you are the blocking administrator; by protecting it, you make it impossible for him to address any issues raised by your block, there is clear conflict of interest in this. I do assume from the above that you will not object to unprotection, but it is better if you do it.-- Abd ( talk) 02:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I have no intention of doing so, since he was a disruptive troll and was using his talk page, not to asuage concerns about his disruption, but rather to further disrupt. I, however, will not raise any objection to any other admin unprotecting it. I, however, stand by my decision to do so, and will not undo it. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 23:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Sadly, Former First Lady Nancy Reagan has been abducted by the Easter Bunny's evil cousins, Frank and Billy Ray. But don't let that stop you from having a great Easter! Cheers. The one and only ----> AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk) 07:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply

ARGH. My savior died for THAT? Nancy, leave those poor bunnies alone! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 23:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, after all the block activity yesterday, the concerning text has been readded today. I know you don't want to get involved, but much of this issue would not have happened, if the BLP noticeboard had provided some timely guidance. So I am asking you, if possible, to get the BLP admins to please respond to the open request on the noticeboard. I am sending this message to admin: B and admin: Jayron32. Thank you for your consideration. 72.0.180.2 ( talk) 21:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply

75.197.18.246 is an address to keep an eye on ... a personal plea from "Nicole Wray" to delete her page, because so many of her fans are complaining about how Wikipedia treats them. Kww ( talk) 21:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply

So, the best thing that came to your mind for Race and intelligence is this? You call it an edit war when a couple of racist editors are trying to add pseudoscientific commentary into the article and truly neutral editors are trying to stop them? Does that mean you support the racists, because protecting an article this bad seems to confuse me greatly? Or does it mean you spent 2 nanoseconds reviewing the commentary of the anti-semitic editors--maybe if you did, could you not have used those impressive admin powers to do some good such as blocking the racists? Thanks a lot for your wonderful assistance to the project. Sigh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The protection of the article has nothing to do with its content. The protection policy does not govern that as adminsitrators we become involved in choosing the better version of an article to protrect. That you call me a supporter of racists is a disgusting personal attack and I demand that you retract it. You will not get "your way" because you try to besmirch my good name simply to get your way. For the record, the article is a piece of shit, and I have no problem saying that it is a piece of shit. However, your disgusting, unprovoked attack on my and my reputation is entirely unacceptable.-- Jayron32. talk. contribs 02:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry to intrude. Just wanted to say, when someone posts non-constructive bashing comments on my talk page I just remove 'em. No point in responding to such people. Equazcion •✗/ C • 02:16, 24 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. And let me apologize for implying that you were a racist. Please please please understand that I am extremely sensitive to anti-Semitism that is prevalent in two or three of the editors to Race and intelligence. Many of my family members are no longer enjoying the laughs of the grand children and great grandchildren because of the Holocaust, because someone didn't stand up to Hitler when he was just a ranting fool. I want everyone to do as I would do, push them down and crush them before their foolish rants kill people. Finally, I like your style. The article is not just a piece of shit, it is a stinking pile of rotting shit. And a couple of the editors there need to have their asses handed to them. Anyways, I do apologize, and I hope we're good. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm just trying to understand. Is there a link or reference that will explain how the ship is run here? -- Preceding unsigned comment add to 03:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Try WP:CONSENSUS. That's the best place to start. For a more general view, try WP:5P. For a humorous view, perhaps WP:CABAL. Hope that helps! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

So I created my own. This is my edit layout for the last four years. It's hot. Mike H. Fierce! 07:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I never created it. I stole it from somewhere. But thanks for noticing. Yours looks cool too! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

*sigh* Greetings newbie admin. Next time, please check who you're dealing with before firing off condescending advice. Considering that I coded unblock-auto to begin with and it's not exactly the easiest of templates to deal with, you have to give me some leeway when it comes to debugging it. --  Netsnipe   ►  18:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry I did not show the proper respect. I apologize for making a mistake. I of course know who you are, yet sometimes when responding to the unblock requests, I don't always recognize the names, nor is it easy for me to read your mind, and understand the difference between your debugging of the template with some newbie screwing around. I understand that your experience and contributions to Wikipedia are valuable, and yet I am not sure that it entitles you to leave belittling messages on my talk page. I am a grown man, and do not appreciate being talked down to like a little boy. I am truly sorry if I inconvenienced you by interupting your work, but I left no message that deserved the sort of comment you left on my talk page. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 19:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

No need to grovel either. And sorry that I snapped at you a bit too harshly. It's 6 in the morning here in Sydney and I really should be sleeping instead of binging on code = P --  Netsnipe   ►  19:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

It's alright. I really am sorry if I messed you up. And I get testy too sometimes. Are we copacetic? -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 19:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Looks like Soccermeko's getting a bit pissed off. Perhaps if we semi'd this list for a few weeks, we'll be able to forestall some trouble. Kww ( talk) 12:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

They have all been semiprotected. If you come across any more, let me know, and I'll pick'em off. User talk:Jayron32|talk]]. contribs 15:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I removed the graphic on your wiki page because it violates Wikipedia rules of profanity.

"Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if they are informative, relevant and accurate, and should be avoided when they serve no other purpose than to shock the reader. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not." [8] RipWinkleVan | Talk

And I put it back. That particular graphic is used on dozens of userpages. The profanity guideline is really more for Wikipedia articles, not userpages. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Wiki rules say that profanity should be avoided when they serve no other purpose but to shock the reader. As a Wikipedia reader I find this graphic offensive because of the profanity in it. RipWinkleVan

Like I said in the edit summary, I removed it once. You reverted back to your desired appearance. I won't be reverting again. Jayron can do what he pleases here. Nice signature. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Please show me where it states in Wiki rules that profanity can be used on userpages. I do not see this stated anywhere and no Jayron32 can not do what he pleases here. This is not a social networking website it is an online community to build a quality encyclopedia. Unless you can tell me in the rules where it says he can have these type of graphics it needs to stay removed. Please read this about what Wiki is not: [ [9]]. Look at category: Wikipedia is not a soapbox RipWinkleVan | Talk

Instead of worrying about what is on people's userpages, why don't you practice what you preach and build a quality encyclopedia? AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk) 20:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

APK, I am 100% certain that RipVanWinkle is not a new user, as they have been around Wikipedia long enough to be able to do some rather advanced stuff to their signature, and this accounts first edit was to find my user page and remove an image they found "offensive". If they persist, I am quite certain that a checkuser will confirm that they are a sockpuppet of someone I blocked recently. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 21:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I am new to Wiki if you would look above at Keepers signature I used his as an example. Its not rocket science. Also why are you so paranoid? -- RipWinkleVan | Talk 21:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Jayron, although I agree that the image can stay on your userpage (I reverted ripwinklevan the first time he removed it), I don't think an edit summary like your most recent is at all helpful. It is rather unbecoming of an admin, IMHO, for two reasons. One, it isn't your userpage, it's Wikipedia's, and 2. It is way too tasty. WP:RBI, man. RbI. .02. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, you're right. I was plainly incivil in that edit summary. I am sorry that I offended you with that. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 21:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I wasn't personally offended. Takes a heck of a lot more than that -- (admin access only, don't forget who "co-wrote" this). Cheers, looking forward to seeing who RWV really is. As far as the signature goes though, he simply ripped mine, that's all. (in the editing screen you'll notice he uses the same coding as my message immediately above his second post). Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

For all of you to to be admins you are sure not acting like admins. I gave reasons for me removing the graphic above and all I get is your personal opinions why it should stay. Not one of you ADMINS referenced the Wiki rules that I provided and took the rules into consideration. You all sound like a bunch of kids bickering. Per the Wiki rules my first attempt to change something should be done through the editor. This is seeming pointless at this time. I will advance this to the next stage since you ADMINS will not have an intelligent conversation about this. -- RipWinkleVan | Talk 21:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Sigh. Rip, you gave a link to a guideline that says it can be broken. Right on the top. The guideline is for Mainspace (which means Wikipedia articles). Userspace (like user talk and userpages) are not Mainspace. It is very interesting to me that the very first edit you ever made as a Wikipedian is to go to a User page and remove something that you found "offensive." I'm also not a big fan of you copying my signature, but so be it. Oh, and AgnosticPreachersKid is not an admin. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

"Oh, and AgnosticPreachersKid is not an admin." Dang Keeper, why did you have to ruin it! :P AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk) 22:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry to burst the bubble, APK. Someday soon, I'm sure. I didn't want you to get dragged into this malarkey. Apparently, Rip is going to tell on "us admins" by taking this to the "next stage." Not sure what that means, but figured you didn't need teh greef. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I know, I'm just playin with ya. I don't think the mop is for me, but one day in the far future who knows. I find it funny when I see new users (I won't name people) constantly talk about their goal is to become an admin. If the main reason someone is on this site is to one day become an admin, IMHO they're here for the wrong reasons. If it happens, it happens. AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk) 22:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Replied on your talkpage APK (sorry Jayron for all the bright orange bars today :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

"The next stage"? And I couldn't help but comment. (sorry, I know you'd like us to all go away (about this anyway)) Shenme ( talk) 04:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply

On 26 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St. Paul A.M.E. Church, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Bencherlite ^Talk 10:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Xinunus (who you blocked) is requesting an unblock. I'm likely to do it if he promises to leave you alone, unless you see some reason why this is inappropriate. I haven't seen the content of the emails you were sent though, so your perspective on that would be appreciated. He represents them as reporting you to AN/I, or some such similar place where he'd just be laughed off, which is not a legal threat. If he's misrepresenting them, please let me know. Thanks, Wily D 15:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• Err, indeed I've been accused to having too much faith in people's abilities to reform, but yes, if he promises to stop and doesn't, he'll get reblocked and that'll be that. Wily D 18:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• Just FYI, he declined my offer to unblock him if he behaved. Wily D 14:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, Jayron! I just put up Master Juba for peer review here. The peer review volunteers page says you're interested in American history, so I thought I'd ask you to take a look if you get the chance. Thanks for any help! — Dulcem ( talk) 06:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Will you re-create this page? He plays a central part in The Sword of Shannara and a minor one in The Elfstones of Shannara.....and quite a few Shannara-related pages link to him--but it is a redlink.....Mainly, it is because I am to lazy to write the article again from stratch....if you re-create, I'll add some references too--though possibly not until Monday. Thank you! the_ ed17 19:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply

P.S. Wikipedia: Wikiproject Shannara also has it on its To-do list, if that is even another reason. =D

P.S.S. I am asking you because you are the one who deleted it after its PROD. =)

Hello user Jayron Wiki Admin. i would like to know if you could give me support for couple of articles i am researching and working on. i am a student at University if Toronto (Scarborough Campus) and am currently studying at the Department of Philosophy & Religion. My intrest is Hinduism and Sacred Books. At this moment i have learned that in the holy books of Hinduism contains quotes about the following people

1. Jesus
2. Adam and Eve
3. Muhammad
4. Abraham
5. Ayyub
6. Moses

the list goes on.

Currently my team (U of T) is working on an article called ( Mahamada) which contains information from an Hindu prespective and mentions about Muhammad in several books. Some users perhaps racist users are not allowing us to contribute to this article and are redirecting the article to another holy book that describes Muhammad. This is not fair for the other holy books containing information about Muhammad. We are working on Mahammad article because we have enough information to claim Jesus and the second target was Mahamad. could you watch out for the article. We are not yet going to revert the edits by them until we post actual photos of these holy books and the texts. -- Vedesh10 ( talk) 09:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello Jayron, I got your name of of the list of sysops and I was wondering if you could check something out for me. This user is adding 'Christian Rock' to Family Force 5 genre(s) and is using heavily-biased, first-party sources to back up this claim. Also, in these sources the band does not refer to themselves as 'Christian Rock' they merely talk about being Christians. I have informed the said user of policy and they continue to revert my edits when I try and fix the problem. He/She says policy does not apply here and I need to use common sense. If I am wrong and policy infact does not apply here I will gladly step down, and drop the issue. If you have the time to check this out I would greatly appreciate it, and if not I understand. Thanks and have a great day. Landon1980 ( talk) 17:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Ok, thanks for your time and opinion. I'm not trying to cause problems here. My only issue is how he is sourcing his claim. He is using first-party, heavily-biased sources to do this. Within the sources the don't even contain the words 'Christian Rock' He is using the statement "We don't care if ppl label us a Christian Band or not" to back up his claim. I just feel that if this claim were true they would say "We don't care if ppl label us a Christian Band, because we are a christian Band." Or at least something to that effect. I have frequented wikipedia for years now, this is my first account, and first time doing much editing but I am familiar with policy. I have never seen primary sources, and heavily-biased sources be used for things like this, let alone ones that you are expected to draw a conclusion by reading, and use common sense. I would think if they are going to be these kind of sources they should at least be explicit. If this claim is true he should be able to properly source it, or at least use a proper primary source. I'm not going to continue to clutter up your page with this. Just answer one question for me and I'll leave you alone. Why does policy not apply in this situation so I know in the future. On the said article ppl have tried to do what he did for months, now all of the sudden he comes along adds that genre and it sticks. I follow policy and all my edits are reverted. All I want him to do is properly source his claim, if he cannot do this it isn't my problem. Landon1980 ( talk) 01:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Because it is up to the user adding the content to find and add the references for it. He and I have reached an agreement anyways. I thought Christian sites were biased, if you just ggogle Family Force 5, instead of "Family Force 5 Christian review" nothing regarding Christianity pops up. I'm not going to mess with the article any more. I'll leave that up to someone else. I just thought if you want to put in an article someone eats tomatoes, the best place to verify this isn't a site that promotes eating tomatoes. I'm sure you know what I mean. Actual reliable un-biased sources for the most part call them alternative rock, or crunk Rock. The Christian sites are the only that do otherwise. Some good sources call them a Christian crossover Crunk Rock band, but certainly not 'Christian Rock'. You don't have to worry about this, I'm not going to mess with the article. Landon1980 ( talk) 03:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Jayron I put up that page for Grace Engineered Products heres the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Liberated169/DRAFT let me know if there is anything else i need to do to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberated169 ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply

The April 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) 01:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Wheely Willy does not necessarily have anything to do with Wikipedia vandalism. DS ( talk) 03:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Indeed, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Willy on Wheels. While you're at it, it wouldn't hurt to brush up on WP:AGF and WP:BITE. — David Levy 04:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, that was my bad. You are right, I am wrong... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 04:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I was using Huggle, and Huggle interpreted it as vandalism after final warning, given the recent level 4 warning. Additionally, it has edited twice today, not once. Regards, Enigma ^message Review 04:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Eh... Have they edit again? Then was a block necessary? If they do return to vandalise in short order, and need stopping, re-report. Otherwise, what is the utility of a block at this point? -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 04:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I understand your reasons. I'm trying to explain two things: 1)Why it was reported. 2)That it had 2 edits, not 1. Enigma ^message Review 04:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

OK.... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 04:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Take it easy on the edit summaries, Jay: [10]. Not nice, eh? Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 16:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

You are entirely correct. I was unneccesarily curt, and that was wrong of me. Please accept my apology for being so. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 16:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Any suggestion for the appropriate tag for that article?-- Cube lurker ( talk) 05:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

User:Thamarih has repeatedly been removing cited material from the Maitreya article (see the discussion here). This article is just one of many that they have vandalized. If you refer to their talk page you will see a long history of vandalism (apparently ONLY to articles about or mentioning the Bahai faith) and blocking. I feel their account is only being used for vandalism. Can you please intervene? -- Ghostexorcist ( talk) 18:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I have asked a couple of times to get Soccermeko's most common targets semiprotected (you apparently slept in this morning, and missed a couple of sock attacks). The best I was able to persuade the regulars at WP:RFPP to give me was a 72-hour semi on Nicole Wray. I think we both know that Soccermeko is far more determined than that. What I would like is a few weeks of semi-protection on Nicole Wray, as well as semi-protection on the articles listed in this AFD. User:Hello Control nominated a whole series of articles that Soccermeko created in January. These articles were hit during today's editing (which is I think how Hello Control noticed them), and you know that when Soccermeko notices it, life will not be good. Please, a little preventive semi-protection? Kww ( talk) 20:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash ( talk) 03:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 6 - April 2008 March issue | May issue Project News There are currently 3,868 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 267 total nominations, 57 are on hold, 13 are under review, and 2 are 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: A4232 road, New York State Route 63, Great American Boycott, First Great Western, Duck Soup, Sanja Matsuri, Code of Conduct (affiliate marketing), Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway, Aliens (film), and Roanoke Regional Airport. The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (27 articles), Sports and recreation (25 articles), Transport (24 articles), Music (19 articles), War and military (19 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Religion, mysticism and mythology (16 articles), Literature (14 articles), World history (14 articles), and Video and computer games (14 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 12 articles up for re-review. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of March, a total of 92 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 74 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 18 were delisted. There are currently 14 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. Congratulations to Nehrams2020 ( talk · contribs), who sweeped a whopping 51 articles during the month! Jackyd101 ( talk · contribs) also deserves congrats for sweeping a total of 26 articles! Reviewer of the Month Dihydrogen monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for March, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen monoxide hails from Brisbane in Queensland, Australia, and has been editing Wikipedia since April 6, 2007. He has contributed to 8 Featured articles and is an avid reviewer and contributor to the Good articles program. Other reviewers should check out his Noob's Guide to GA Reviewing. Congratulations to Dihydrogen monoxide! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of March include: GaryColemanFan ( talk · contribs) Limetolime ( talk · contribs) Malachirality ( talk · contribs) Nikki311 ( talk · contribs) Wrad ( talk · contribs) Member News There are now 195 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 13 new members that joined during the month of March: AndreNatas ( talk · contribs) Dank55 ( talk · contribs) English836 ( talk · contribs) ExplorerCY ( talk · contribs) JayJ47 ( talk · contribs) Mastrchf91 ( talk · contribs) MBK004 ( talk · contribs) Million Moments ( talk · contribs) Neparis ( talk · contribs) Nicholas Perkins ( talk · contribs) NimiTize ( talk · contribs) PGPirate ( talk · contribs) Zenlax ( 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! To delist or not to delist, that is the question So you’ve found an article that, on the face of it, does not merit its good article status. What next? Especially where there are many glaring issues that need addressing, it’s tempting to just revoke its GA status and remove it from the list, but although we are encouraged as editors to be bold, this approach (known to some as "bold delisting") is not recommended good practice. There are many reasons why a listed article might not meet the assessment criteria—it’s always possible that it never did, and was passed in error, but more likely the criteria have changed or the article quality has degraded since its original assessment. Either way, we should treat its reassessment with no less tact and patience than we would a fresh nomination. This, in fact, provides a good starting point for the delisting process. Approach the article as though it has been nominated for GA review. Read it and the GA criteria carefully, and provide a full reassessment on the article talk page. Explain where and why the article no longer meets the criteria, and suggest remedies. Having explained why the article no longer meets current GA criteria, allow its editors time to fix it! In keeping with the above approach, it may help to treat the article as on hold. There is no need to tag it as such, but give editors a reasonable deadline, and consider helping out with the repair work. Bear in mind that more flexibility may be required than for a normal hold—the editors did not request or expect your reassessment and will probably have other projects taking up their time. They may not have worked on the article for months or even years, and at worst the article may have been abandoned and its authors no longer active. As always, communication is the key. It sometimes helps to post messages to relevant WikiProjects (found at the top of the article talk page), or to contact editors directly ( this tool is useful for identifying active editors for any given article). Only once the above process has run its course, and sufficient improvement has not been forthcoming, is it time to think about delisting the article. Communicate your final decision on the article talk page, even if there was no response to your reassessment and hold, and take the time to fill in the various edit summaries on the article talk and GA list pages to ensure the delisting is transparent and trackable. If you have any doubts about your final decision, you can list the article at Good article reassessment or contact one of the GA mentors, who will be happy to advise. Article reassessment is perhaps the single most controversial function of our WikiProject, and the one with the most potential to upset and alienate editors. Yet it is one of the most necessary too, since without the ability to revoke an article’s status we would be unable to maintain quality within the project. However, if we approach reassessment sensitively and with the goal of improving articles to the point where sanctions are unnecessary, we will ensure that delisting is the last resort, not the first. Delisting instructions From the Editors As we near the 4,000 Good Articles milestone, the project continues to grow and to gain respect in the Wikipedia community. Nevertheless, we continue to have a large backlog. If every member of WikiProject Good Articles would review just one article each day during the month of April, the backlog would be eliminated! Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) EyeSerene (Article) 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 |

Hi! I was wondering if you'd be able to look over this peer review ( article). It's got a long way to go, and any input would be greatly appreciated. :) This spam message brought to you on behalf of the current Tzatziki Squad collaboration. Thanks, Keilana| ^{Parlez ici} 22:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for clearing that IP block. It's like being in a solitary cell and wondering if anybody knows you're even there. I gather that you're in NC, USA, so the particulars of the background story won't mean anything to you; I was hoping you could explain how that block is working. Will it come back again if that guy tries to edit again? Can it be/has it been replaced with a particular block on the sockpuppet? Retarius | Talk 05:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that, mate! I hope (but doubt) that he's got it out of his system. That article's infested with sockpuppets and meatpuppets and it could turn very nasty yet. I wouldn't waste a keystroke on it myself and I don't need blocking every time they have a bash at each other.

On a more pleasant note: what's with the bathrobes? Do you guys actually know each other and socialise? Retarius | Talk 06:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey, I found you on the volunteer list and was hoping you could pop on over to a little article I'm hoping to make into at least a GA. The article is Posting system ( PR). Any help you can provide would be appreciated! Thanks! Torsodog ( talk) 00:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you. That was prompt. ~ S0CO^{( talk| contribs)} 06:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for fixing the block on my office. You are a most fair admin. Seattlehawk94 ( talk) 15:48, 13 April 2008 (PDT)

Hello Jayron32. A few months ago, you hard blocked user Slnm ( talk · contribs · block log) for harrassment. I doubt this person is a serious troll, but I thought I should let you know that a user called Pkmntushpoo ( talk · contribs) claimed yesterday that he/she was slnm ( "slnm strikes again"). Cheers, Face 22:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't approve of your recent decision to become reclusive. It's bad times. Lara ❤ Love 15:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I second that. I haven't heard from you in 20 years...and yes, I exaggerate like a million times a day. P.S. Someone took some great pictures around Raleigh for articles. Lemme know if you have some free time in the near future to take a picture of the State Bank of North Carolina or Leonard Hall (Shaw University). If you do, I'll name my first-born after you. (I might be a Friend of Dorothy, but I'm currently off the pill, so you never know what may happen). :P AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk) 18:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Great. Make me feel even worse. Yeah, I'll try to get the camera out for those. I pass Shaw quite frequently, several times a week. I should be able to snap a picture or two of that one. The State Bank looks to be pretty close to the Governors mansion. Maybe I'll take Andrew around downtown and snap some photo's of major landmarks. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 20:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply

On second thought, Jayron32 would be an awkward name for a child. I'll stick with the original name I have planned, Shaniqua. AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk) 20:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Well fine then. Fuck that. If I don't getta your firstborn, you don't getta da pictures. Capesci? -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 20:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Ok, deal. Shaniqua will be the middle name. Hmmm, Jayron32 Shaniqua Miller. Wentworth and I aren't planning on having kids for at least another year, but I promise that will be the name that's on the birth certificate. AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk) 20:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Nothing like spending a beautiful morning having cyber-abuse hurled at you by a moron and his friends. You deserve a cookie. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 15:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply

omnonmnomnomnomnomnom... thx... ummy cookie! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 15:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply

• A pleasure. May your Bathrobe of Truth be forever doused with its crumbs. As for me, I'm off to spend a Starbucks gift card while hoping that the volcanic fumes from Lassen Peak don't damage those dweebs any further. See ya! -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 16:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Munson 2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI ( talk) 03:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi there the Thriller album is on peer review. I would appreciate your input very much. Please help in anyway you can if you have the time. Thankyou. Realist2 ( talk) 03:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron32. I notice you are down as a peer review volunteer under the everydaylife section, covering sports. I was wondering whether you could possibly peer review the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix article for me. The peer review is located here. Regards, D.M.N. ( talk) 09:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron, saw your decline here. Another editor has reverted his re-addition of the material, not sure why it appears to be a good faith edit. He seemed to create the article solely to vandalise. How many more edits should I give him before re-reporting? Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARI ^{My story} _{Tell me yours} 20:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Guy who is whats his name -- love it ;) Will do, see where I can get. Would love it if he's a + editor TRAVELLINGCARI ^{My story} _{Tell me yours} 20:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I'll keep my fingers crossed and keep you posted if necessary :) TRAVELLINGCARI ^{My story} _{Tell me yours} 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply

He's been vandalizing again following the end of his ban. 74.78.98.109 ( talk) 01:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I took care of all your comments except #6. What exactly do you mean in that? Thanks, Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 20:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply

... and  Done I think I got everything. Thanks, Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 02:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply

• "Also, re-read the lead. It still lists Saban as a member of the pro football HOF, and the caption on Parcells pic is wrong as well. Also, as another thing, for sake of completeness, you should probably have links to all of the references for each coach's record, and use the same website for them all. I prefer jt-sw for my football stats (they are the most complete of ANY of them, IMHO) but just be consistent" - I'm done with that, but you never striked that.

• "As requested at my talk page, to clarify #6: The situation in 1978 was similar to 1971. In 1978, it was learned that Chuck Fairbanks was negotiating with other teams, specifically the University of Colorado Buffaloes, to leave the Pats and accept a head coaching job there. The Pats responded by removing Fairbanks (rather than fire him, they suspended....." Done with that, but you never striked that. (Put that in the lead)
• "Again, the coaching record is all wrong. For example,..." Done with that you never striked that.
• "The unusual situation at the end of the 1978 season should probably be noted somewhere. Heck, if the list immortalizes Phil Bengston'..." Done with that but you never striked that.
• Also, re-read the lead. It still lists Saban as a member of the pro football HOF..." Done with that you never striked that.

Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 13:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Okay.... I think I got everything. (Including Peanut's comments) Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 15:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks.

		The Running Man Barnstar
		For significant work to List of New England Patriots head coaches, and other sports-related article, I Milk’s Favorite Cookie (Talk) hereby award you this Barnstar. Thanks again for the help. Milk’s Favorite Cookie (Talk) 19:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply

THANKS! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 19:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, I noticed that you speedily deleted $cientology under criterion R3, and just want to bring this RFD to your attention. There's probably no need to restore the redirect (it had no really useful history), but there is some support for retargeting it to Satiric misspelling#"$" replacing "S"; "€" replacing "E", "£" replacing "L". – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 16:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Eh. Go ahead and undelete it then. No big whoop from my point of view... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Done. Cheers, Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 17:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry I missed your first note. I got some subsequent messages and I didn't see yours. I'm compiling some info that I'll email to you. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

Hey man. If you could, please be very careful when summarizing editors' actions when posting to ANI (and elsewhere). In this edit you state that "The main crux of the problem was some low-grade edit warring between Jsn9333 and User:Blaxthos." Although it's not a big deal (and I don't want to make it one), I must take exception to your characterization of the incident. It most certainly was not "low grade edit warring"; it was a pretty involved case of a disruptive SPA constantly attacking and berating anyone whom didn't agree with him (including two administrators and multiple editors). Taking him at his word, and then summarizing it as fact in WP:ANI does a disservice to both the ANI action implemented by R.Baley and my reputation. I hope this message isn't offensive (it's not intended to be incendiary or chiding), but I would ask that you carefully consider these sorts of issues in the future. Thanks for your help, and have a good weekend! / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Heya, thanks for the note. I have no doubt that your intent was altruistic and served to attempt to de-escalate the situation. If all things were equal (which you appropriately assumed) then it would certainly have been a satisfactory move. I see that you're going to great lengths to maintain good faith, however this could lead to misstatements of fact. This process was very long and entails probably at least a megabyte of raw text to review. As far as I know, the only uninvolved admin to have reviewed it in its entirety is R.Baley. I know in a lot of situations I'm tempted to read the summarization of points without diving into the entire body of evidence; in this case it would lead one to believe that it was simply an edit war or a content dispute (which it obviously was not). I'm not an admin (nor have I ever asked to be one); I'm obviously cautious of giving advice to admins about adminstuff. However, perhaps the best thing to do is provide a link to the actual ANI proceeding instead of attempting a summarization that may not properly reflect the entirety of the circumstances. Then again, that often times just means it will be ignored by the majority of the editors (reference my earlier statement). It's kinda a catch-22 I guess. Also, although I support objective review of all actions taken (by admins and editors alike) I usually try to err on the side of caution when questioning another admin's actions and assume that there is a pretty good reason why something happened the way it did. R.Baley has done an outstanding job of reviewing the evidence, and gave the editor in question ample opportunity to avoid being blocked. It is my personal opinion that disruptive editors often count on WP:AGF and the good faith of neutral parties to advance trolling/strife/disruption (often by way of asking the other parent). It's the nature of the beast I guess.  ;-) I've typed *way* more than I intended, and so if you've made it this far then please accept my thanks for responding and know that I take no offense and hold no ill will. Thanks! / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi! Can you treat this case [11]? I think that it´s more than suspicious, almost ovbious I would say...

Thank you, -- Ultracanalla ( talk) 03:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Its already up for Checkuser. Lets let the checkuser run its course before we see what happens... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello. I noticed that you have listed yourself as a peer review volunteer in the area of sports. I would like comments on an article I have recently put up for review, SummerSlam (1988). Any help is appreciated, so if you have some time, I'd appreciate your comments here. Thanks so much! If you are not interested in reviewing the article, please ignore this message. Nikki 311 22:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron32, I know I'm probably the last person you want to hear from, but what has happened this time is that user:Blaxthos launched a fresh accusation on the ANI. He has accused me of being a socket puppet of some user he exchanged barbs with apparently a long time ago or something. There is no evidence presented at all, just the fact that both myself and this other user have traded barbs with Blaxthos. Seriously. That's it. You can see for yourself. No network matching, grammar comparison, time-edit matching... *nothing*!

Of course I had to respond to this... I'm not a socketpuppet nor do I have a socketpuppet... and I can't just sit and let myself be permanently blocked. So I responded, pointing out that there are many, many editors who have traded barbs with Blaxthos. I did not want to respond, but what am I supposed to do? I know I'm not a socket puppet. And therefore I know there is absolutely zero evidence that I am.

Now, of course, user:R. Baley has jumped into the fray and is saying he wants to block me again for "not letting it go". (!!??). I can't believe this is actually happening, but it is. I have tried to move on from the Fox News mess, I have found some other, non-controversial articles to contribute to... but this guy keeps coming at me and it seems he has an admin on his side. This is just so crazy I can't even believe it. R. Baley, thank God, has asked for another admin to step in and give an opinion... and you seem very fair minded. I trust whatever your opinion is. If you could just stop by here and drop a line I would appreciate it... whatever you have to say. Seriously. If I'm in the wrong here, then say so. But I am just dumbfounded this is actually still continuing and I just want it to stop one way or another. Thanks. Jsn9333 ( talk) 03:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Honestly, if you want my opinion, just stop reading ANI. Stop defending yourself. Just go fix up some articles or something. Its actually not that hard to avoid contact with people. Maybe some cleanup work might help keep you busy and avoid getting entangled in stuff. The Wikify and Categorization projects and stuff like that is always looking for extra help. Stuff will probably blow over if you just let it... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 04:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Cool. Thank you. Jsn9333 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply

You seem to be posting some promotional usernames to UAA, however most of the accounts are quite stale. Most last edited 2 weeks ago.

That's because there's a backlog of spam and spammers that no one has bothered to clear out, which I'm working my way through chronologically. I've been busy the last couple of weeks, or I would have tagged them earlier. Including several offenders who hadn't been blocked after I tagged their pages the first time a week ago.

Also, UAA has recently tightened up its crtieria for posting; only names that need to be blocked right now (i.e. similar to AIV requirements; such as actively spamming usernames or blatantly offensive usernames (racist, cursewords, things like that).

Inappropriate user names and accounts get blocked and spam pages get deleted. Period/full-stop. Whether they're one minute old or one month old doesn't change that -- and WP:UAA is where they get reported.

You have posted close to 3 text pages of these usernames to the UAA page, I have not looked at every one, but a random spot check of about 10 of them showed that all of them are quite stale, the most recent edit I could find from ANY of them is from April 13th.

Two weeks is NOT "quite stale" by any reasonable measure, and age doesn't make them suddenly more appropriate.

Blocking the mass of them takes some considerable manpower from admins, and the admins could user [sic] their time more wisely addressing more pressing needs than blocking inactive accounts.

Blocking them individually as they come up would have taken the same amount of time, in total, as doing them en masse -- possibly more, counting inefficiencies -- so that's an argument that holds absolutely no water. Unless you're suggesting that admins shouldn't bothering doing any blocking of spammers/deleting of spam at all, which you're going to have a hard time selling to anyone except the hardcore " every page is sacred" crowd.

If you don't want to do it, perhaps you should let someone else handle it. -- Calton | Talk 06:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Eh... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 06:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply

...for blocking User:146.145.164.39. wheeeeoooooo that was a wild ride... Gotta love huggle. Thanks again. Thingg ^{⊕ ⊗} 15:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I've blocked him before, so his talk page was on my watchlist. It was quick to stop him this time. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 15:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply

That you were a genius. this is a brilliant essay. Didn't know it existed till just now. I endorse your essay. Simply brilliant. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Well thank you. I knew that expository writing class I took in High School would count for something! But thanks a bunch!!! tell yer friends! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Jayron - Peanut4 wants the lead expanded and a "History" section to be added in. Anyways, I did this to List of San Diego Chargers head coaches, and I was wondering (since you seem more, uhh... "experienced" with the Pats) [although I live 40 minutes from Foxboro] that you could take care of this. Thanks, Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 22:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I expanded and rewrote the lead after Peanut4 made those comments. Does he have any specific things he finds inadequate about the lead as it stands now or is he just fishing? The lead as written contains a general overview of the important aspects of the coaches (which ones won awards, coached in championships, superlative records, etc.) I don't really see the point in mindlessly expanding the text just for the sake of adding wordcount. If there is specific information that someone could point to as lacking, I can add it, but really, loading the lead with random trivia just to make it longer (and its QUITE compliant with WP:LEAD in terms of length now) does not actually make the article any better. Besides, its a list article. The history stuff is covered in the history article quite well. If people want more info on the individual coaches, that is what the Wikilinks are for. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 22:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply

See this. Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 22:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply

If he has specific, actionable problems with the List of New England Patriots coaches article, let him leave them at THAT articles FLC page. A vague "the lead isn't good enough" comment on your talk page is hardly a real objection, and if it isn't on the Pats FLC page specifically, I don't see how the FLC coordinators can consider it unacted upon, nor do I see how editors can fix the problem. Plus, unless there are specific problems, I am not sure what can be fixed... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 22:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I pretty much thought the same thing. Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 22:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Aight - Regardless, I added a History section. I just covered every coach who made it to the playoffs (as he requested somewhere on my talk) Anyways, I was wondering if you could add references to some of it? And also write something near the end about Belichick? That would help. And you've made a place in my userpage ;) Best, Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 01:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply