There is currently a backlog of 54 users at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user. Please consider offering adoption to one or more of these users. Don't forget to change their {{adoptme}} template to {{adoptoffer|Jayron32/Archive7}}. Thank you for your continued participation in Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. xenocidic ( talk) 19:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The May 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) 23:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply

On 2 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of New England Patriots head coaches, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thought I should pass this on to you for rewriting the lead. Thanks again. Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 20:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply

THANKS! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 21:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash ( talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 7 - May 2008 April issue | June issue Project News There are currently 4,050 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 227 total nominations, 16 are on hold, 14 are under review, and two 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: Fighting Tommy Riley, Brock Lesnar, Cluj-Napoca, Wolf's Rain, Brian Kendrick, and North and South (TV serial). The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (45), Sports and recreation (34), Music (18), Transport (15), World history (14), Politics and government (13), and Places (12). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 17 articles up for re-review. GAN Reviewer of the Month Noble Story ( talk · contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for April, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Noble Story joined Wikipedia on May 16, 2007. He is a big fan of the Houston Rockets, and edits many related articles, as well as articles on basketball in general. Congratulations to Noble Story ( talk · contribs) on being April's GAN Reviewer of the Month! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of April include: Dihydrogen Monoxide ( talk · contribs) Drewcifer3000 ( talk · contribs) Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs) GaryColemanFan ( talk · contribs) Gary King ( talk · contribs) Jbmurray ( talk · contribs) Kaypoh ( talk · contribs) Lpangelrob ( talk · contribs) Mitchazenia ( talk · contribs) Nikki311 ( talk · contribs) Realist2 ( talk · contribs) Redtigerxyz ( talk · contribs) ThinkBlue ( talk · contribs) Member News There are now 212 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 17 new members that joined during the month of April: Affinity likely ( talk · contribs) Climie.ca ( talk · contribs) Edmund Patrick ( talk · contribs) Eustress ( talk · contribs) IMatthew ( talk · contribs) Kironide ( talk · contribs) Makeshift Thackery ( talk · contribs) Mm40 ( talk · contribs) Nikki311 ( talk · contribs) Noble Story ( talk · contribs) Peanut4 ( talk · contribs) Realist2 ( talk · contribs) SorryGuy ( talk · contribs) Sushant gupta ( talk · contribs) ThinkBlue ( talk · contribs) WBOSITG ( talk · contribs) Will381796 ( 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! GA Topic Do you know what a GA topic is? If you are not nodding your head, or don't know what I'm talking about, then you should pay attention to this article. There are ten GA top-level topics (but you will spot the eleventh as this article goes along). These topics are: Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion, Everyday life, Social sciences and society, Geography and places, History, Engineering and technology, Mathematics, and Natural sciences. Each of these topics are further narrowed down to more specific topics. For example, Arts can be narrowed down to Art and architecture, Music, and Theatre, film and drama. But let's not get into sub-topics in this article because of its depth. Now you will probably ask, "I already knew this, so what is your point?" What I want to illustrate is that some people often forget a step when they promote an article to GA. After they have posted their review in the article talk page, added the article name to the corresponding topic in the good article page, increased the GA count by 1, and added the {{ GA}} to article talk page, many reviewers tend to forget to add the topic parameter in {{ GA}} or {{ ArticleHistory}}. You can browse the topic parameter abbreviations at on this page as well as what each top-level GA topic means, because sometimes it can be chaotic and confusing to pick a topic. For example, should On the Origin of Species be placed under the Natural Science topic (because it's related to evolution), or under the Language and Literature topic (because it is a book)? The correct answer is to place it under Language and literature topic, because its categorization as a proper title supercedes other categories. Let's go back to the page that shows GA topics; does anyone spot the eleventh topic? Yes, Category:Good articles without topic parameter is the 11th topic, only it shouldn't be there. Articles that do not have a topic parameter in either {{ GA}} or {{ ArticleHistory}} will be placed in this category. The topic "Uncategorized" is not very informative, is it? So if you have time, you can consider cleaning up the articles that are left in this category and move them to the appropriate category by adding a topic parameter. That's it for this month, I hope you learned a little from it. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of April, a total of 26 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 15 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and two were delisted. There are currently six articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. One article was exempted from review because it was promoted to FA. Two articles were exempted from review because they were already delisted by another member in the community. We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details. Did You Know... ...that there are slightly less than twice as many Good Articles as Featured Articles? ...that the total number of Good Articles and Featured Articles combined is 6,085? ...that different languages have different symbols representing GA? (Alemannic uses , Bavarian uses , Czech and French use , Estonian, Icelandic, and Swedish use , Esperanto and German use , Polish, Spanish, and Turkish use , Portuguese uses , Russian uses , Ukrainian uses ) Note: Lithuanian and Serbian have their own symbol but only uploaded locally. Other languages not listed above either have the same symbol as english or they don't have GA process. From the Editors There is currently a debate on adding a small green dot to the top right corner of all Good Articles that pass the criteria, similar to the small bronze star that is added to the top right corner of Featured Articles. Members of WikiProject Good Articles are encouraged to participate in the debate on this page. Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (Article, GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Madame X (album) ( talk | history | start review) • Gedling Town F.C. ( talk | history | start review) • Reggie Barnes (skateboarder) ( talk | history | start review) • Exile (American band) ( talk | history | start review) • Jude Law ( talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Louie Caporusso • Northallerton • Patrick Omameh • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013) Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list |

If this is him, he's being smart enough to stay away from long talk-page posts. What do you think? Kww ( talk) 01:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The answer may lie in Changes (Nicole Wray). Mdsummersw believes it's a repost. Can you look at the previously deleted version and see if it is identical? If so, there's only one person that could have created it. Kww ( talk) 12:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Confirmed — Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron: Legitimate edit [1]? Thanks for your attention. Cheers, JNW ( talk) 04:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The student magazine sounds like the kind of thing I would have been involved in (and indeed I was) in high school, but not Wiki-worthy, nor worth an edit war. Thanks again. JNW ( talk) 04:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank god you protected that. It was getting quite annoying. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} _{Review Me!} 02:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you. ManymerrymenmakingmuchmoneyinthemonthofMay ( talk) 02:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I dont understand the removal of this, if it isn't vandalism then can you explain what to do? It seems to me this is an Wikipedia:Ownership of articles issue. Minor edits and removing of unsourced material from an bio article shouldn't be that controversial. How can i improve this article if good edits are being reverted with accusations of bad faith, personal attacks and refusal to discuss the changes on the talk page? I'd appreciate any help with this you can give, in particular to review my edits (lists on the talk page Talk:Chantal_Claret#Changes_-_discuss_here, which i believe are good edits and not that controversial and let me now if they are correct and possibly act as a third opinion --neonwhite user page talk 03:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

His edits do not qualify as simple vandalism, and as such WP:AIV is NOT the correct place to report them. Instead, try to go through dispute resolution instead. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

It just seems a little pointless to, say, do an rfc or request mediation for such minor edits. I fear a lack of interest. I'm happy to involve other editors but feel they will only look to the same policies i am and end up back where it started but i'll try asking for a third opinion. --neonwhite user page talk 04:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 2, Issue 4 • 30 April 2008 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors	Features Arbitration case closes USRD gets a couplet of Featured Articles The Road to Chicago	State and national updates Leaderboard Arizona Michigan Nevada New York Texas Utah
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. — Rschen7754bot ( talk) 05:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

You just removed my report of a user who has been warring with me and two other users for many hours now. Rather than just remove things, why not read the compelling evidence at the 3RR report page and do something about this user as no other admin seems to be bothering. Thank very very very very much. ^┌ _Joshii^┐_└ ^chat_┘ 05:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

WP:AIV has clear guidelines for what is reported there. It isn't a place to go hunting for admins to come to your aid. His actions, while disruptive, aren't vandalism. Whether he may or may not be blocked for them; I will not comment on. But AIV is for dealing with vandalism, not edit warring. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 05:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

So are you not an admin? It's just on your userpage it says you are? Are admins not supposed to help people? It would be a real help if you would go over to WP:3RR and help me with the problems I am having with a user. If there are admins online then why are none of them bothering to help?? What is the point in admins??? ^┌ _Joshii^┐_└ ^chat_┘ 05:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I am an admin. I was just telling you that there are proper places to take your issues. AIV is not for calling admins to your help randomly. It has a specific purpose. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 05:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not saying it doesn't, I know what AIV is supposed to be for but you must understand how frustrating it is when there are obviously admins online yet none of them even bother to check the 3RR page. I even added an admin backlog tag to the page to see if anybody would help but nobody has. So are you not allowed to process reports on 3RR? ^┌ _Joshii^┐_└ ^chat_┘ 05:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

You seem to be confusing the concept of "allowed" with the concept of "interested". -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 05:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

It would take you all of 2 minutes to click a couple of buttons and shut him up. You really think I am interested in reverting edits non-stop? No but I don't want the article to be destroyed by spam. Please spare a minute of your time and I will be able to rest! ^┌ _Joshii^┐_└ ^chat_┘ 05:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Cheers! ^┌ _Joshii^┐_└ ^chat_┘ 05:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

happy now? Next time, have a little patience. Admins are no less volunteers than you. Misusing AIV is not the way to get things done. In the future, just let it go. These things all eventually get taken care of. Just because it doesn't happen at your timescale does not mean that no one cares. Well, I don't care, but at least now you'll stop bugging me... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 05:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

← Admins are here to help, but they're not slaves, Joshii. You refused to wait for an admin to weigh in on the 3RR report, added a new report in an inappropriate venue, and when this was pointed out to you, you responded as if Jayron was ignoring his adminly responsibility to fix this. Next time, try acknowledging your error, and then asking nicely for assistance. Equazcion •✗/ C • 06:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Might we have to nuke the mobile number from the history too? SGGH ^speak! 12:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

If you want to hunt down an oversighter to do so, feel free to. The article is deleted, and so the content is not viewable by anyone except admins. If you believe admins can't be trusted, go ahead and find one. I think Alison is an oversighter, and she's been active recently. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 12:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Ah right, I forgot that only admins can view the material. In that case it probably isn't necessary, but I will ask her. SGGH ^speak! 12:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi. Don't know if this matters much but it's actually from the front cover of the " Super Session" album. Photographer might need a credit? Cheers. -- Rodhull andemu 13:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Didn't catch that. Do you have the photographer? If you can find it, maybe you can add the name? -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

FWIW, allmusic doesn't know who the photographer is either. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The original album cover credits "Cover photos: Jim Marshall, E. Landy" but of the three photos, doesn't particularise further. I'll put either/or. -- Rodhull andemu 18:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Kewl beans! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 18:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, I screwed up. I responded here: [2]. Bearian ( talk) 15:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I moved the history section to History of New England Patriots head coaches a while ago. I don't think it will pass FLC this time, and we might have to renominate it because of a lack of comments. Do you have Google-talk or AIM? It would be easier to discuss this. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ^{( talk / contribs)} 18:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello. Thanks for your quick response, but I believe that protecting the article this soon is jumping the gun a bit, for reasons listed at WP:ANI. Goo day, JeanLatore ( talk) 19:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I just noticed this question that you asked me earlier about that user. It might've been a false positive as I was using Huggle and since I am new to huggle, it might've been a mistake. Cheers, Razor flame Report false positives 01:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Its a moot point anyways, since he stopped editing shortly after your warnings, there was no need for a block... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 01:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I read it, but it doesn't help me. I know users may remove comments from other users on their talk page. It says "However, notices regarding blocks and block-reviews should not be removed while the block is still active.", but the essay doesn't mention about block warnings and in the case I was dealing with; a final warning. The Vandal Warrior ( talk) 01:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Just stunned - Saw your reply on WP:EAR - what bot adds census demographic results to Cities? When on earth was this bot incepted and when do you think city articles are created? today, tommorrow, ok so when was the last census and who runs this bot? -- EhsanQ ( talk) 03:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Cool - I can assure you that Ram-bot didn't adjust the figures as you told the editor Ram bots only attempt. Come on We need to explain real issues and explain when we are wrong not blame it on a machine. What is eating you? Be real be true man. -- EhsanQ ( talk) 04:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Jayron no (a) you replied to an editor trying to get a straight answer to a very straightforward thing if - f is 22% why should it before a which is 55%? You replied its not an editorial fault (which it is) it is a bot fault does it all the time, gets what its fed but carry on and get into conflict disputes because there isn't a policy for this outside of wikiprojects. It was possibly the most unhelpful thing I have ever seen on WP:EAR. The bot didn't even do the damage on the quoted article. -- EhsanQ ( talk) 04:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I've actually run through most of his fall 2002 edits. Amazing editor but bots don't edit mistakes. It really is wrong to give editors wrong ideas about Wikipedia. The editor was correct that a lot of those entries hadn't been reformatted even if Ram-Man was doing repetitive job very quickly in days before certainly I (you?) knew before Wikipedia existed. Simple answers are the best, don't blame it on the dog and don't tell editors to sort out Wikipedia themselves if they have a problem. That does suck. -- EhsanQ ( talk) 05:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Can you answer me a quick question? Who do you think is right in the edit war between myself and JeanLatore. Which ever it is does not matter, I am simply curious. Rau's Speak Page 04:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I hold no opinion on the matter. As I am acting as an administrator in this issue, I take no sides; I only act to stop the disruption to the encyclopedia. My view was that each side was reverting as much as the other, which is why I protected the article. However, I have no official opinion on whose version is the right one. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 04:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Okay, thanks for taking the time to respond anyway. Rau's Speak Page 17:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

If so, can you suggest a hook for Orton Plantation? I was going to use "... that the Orton Plantation near Wilmington, North Carolina, was attacked by Native Americans, used as a military hospital, and been home to a governor?" I'm afraid the P.C. police won't like the Indian part and the last section of the sentence sounds odd. Suggestions? APK ^{yada yada} 05:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Axualy, I kinda like it. It's not often a hook has 3 rather relevant, rather interesting facts to hang on... Let it run and see what happens. If someone doesn't like it, let them tell you how to fix it. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 20:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Done. APK ^{yada yada} 22:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I know. Maybe I'm just a little too optimistic that we have a possible productive user down there somewhere. I thought I'd warn him first about the email and if he continued, then to disable; similar to everything else. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  00:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

THANKS! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 01:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Specifically, your decline of the unblock, is very inappropriate. Not only did you decline an unblock to a block you made, your block reason is fallacious — the edit was sourced, to Reuters no less. If Reuters is not a reliable source, then please tell me what is. Anyway, please reconsider your actions here. seresin ( ¡? ) 02:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Having read the above, I'm unblocking. The edit was eventually sourced (and I think the information's relevant to the subject), this user was proceeding on good-faith grounds after discussing it with Elipongo here, and had been trying to discuss it with CanadianLinuxUser when he was blocked.

I'm not accusing you of bad-faith here ... this took a little time to investigate, and admittedly this user had a couple of civility problems earlier in the day. But he was trying to discuss things and heed warnings, and was making progress until the block. Daniel Case ( talk) 02:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I've done it. This is maybe the third or fourth time in almost a year as an admin I've actually granted another user's unblock (as opposed to, say, unblocking someone I might have mistakenly blocked). So believe me, I don't do this much. Daniel Case ( talk) 02:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Isn't he already an existing user? Just curious as to how that works? -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 02:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

He is locked out, had the account renamed, and I created it by email for him. Good eyes though :) –  Mike. lifeguard |  ^@en.wb 04:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I think you blocked my username and accused me of sockpuppetry. I've changed the name though it was actually homage to Georgie Fame, the musician. I'm not sure about the sockpuppetry. I don't think I've actually made enough contributions to be guilty of anything, but am happy to explain any edits I've made thus far. I hope this all makes sense and you can unblock me as soon as possible.—Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgieFamingo ( talk • contribs)

I haven't blocked either of your accounts (GeorgieFamingo or Famingo). They are both currently free to edit. If you have a third account, please let me know so we can sort this out. I still have no idea what you are talking about. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 15:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood this message:

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:

If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it. If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process. You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the guidelines there. Thank you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I'm not currently blocked and both accounts are fine. I can just delete the Famingo one then. Thanks and apologies again for the confusion. -- GeorgieFamingo ( talk) 00:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the heads up. I used the automatic notification feature of huggle, so I'll have to keep a look out to see if that was a glitch with the software or my mistake (more likely). Cheers.-- Kubigula ( talk) 14:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, just to let you know, that a user you previously blocked ( User:166.109.0.216) has now started editing again, and looks as if he is still a vandal. Only one warning so far, so someone to keep an eye on... I have watchlisted his page. ← κεηηε∂γ ^{( shout at me)} 10:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Just FYI: It's up at FLC again. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ^{( talk / contribs)} 21:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Erm, did you mean to do this [3] ? MBisanz ^talk 21:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Looks like we ECed, and the software had a glitch. No idea how that happened. Go ahead and add your comment back again. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 21:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply

No prob, I did the same thing early with a protection conflict on ED. MBisanz ^talk 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Good work with this guy :-)

I'm not sure "recidivist" is the right level of wording to be using on someone who is being so deliberately obtuse, though!

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, maybe he'll actually get a dictionary, which will probably be the first reference work he's ever been involved with. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron32, I was looking at User:Vittala's contributions thinking that they looked to me like a possible Rosencomet sock. I noticed that Guy had blocked for this previously, and you had unblocked "Per discussion of several admins". I was wondering if you could point me to that discussion, if there was record of it. Best Regards, Pete.Hurd ( talk) 19:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi. You were involved earlier with this earlier:

• Wfgh66 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive361#Systematic deletion of my contributions to Wikipedia

FYI, this has come around the track again:

• MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed unlisting of Priory-of-Sion.com.

-- A. B. ^{( talk • contribs)} 15:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• • Yeah, looks like you have that under control. Doesn't seem like he's changed much in all these months.-- Jayron32. talk. contribs 21:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Angus, I am afraid TeePee has not learnt much from his blocking (that he appealed to you to remove), and he has regained his old habits of incivility on Talk:Chilean Australian. What really has taken the cake was his mocking comment when I acknowledged he had correctly identified he was right on something. Other editors are now being abused by him, although I suspect they are more frustrated by his inability to listen or assimilate basic facts. Earlier mentoring he received on his talk page ( User talk:TeePee-20.7) hasn't seemed to work. What do you judge should be the next step? Kransky ( talk) 14:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Noticed your decision. Must comment, though, on the IP address portion. The user in question, User:Hdayejr, has been indef blocked from several accounts and has gotten by with his trolling on anonymous IP addresses, as anyone who's dealt with it and him in the past can testify to. Just thought I'd pass that along, and thanks for your help. -- ChrisP2K5 ( talk) 19:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I am quite familiar with the situation. Just keep me aprised if problems reassert themselves. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 22:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Roger wilco, my friend, will do. I see the man might've struck again? -- ChrisP2K5 ( talk) 02:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Where? I can block if needed... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I restored some of the images and warned Die Profis that he was editing disruptively and that I would block him if he continued (I have half a mind to anyway). Some of the deletions appear to be legit, but it looks like he just lost his mind when I unblocked her. I may have to add to the AN thread ... I smell some dirty socks here, though whose I don't know. Daniel Case ( talk) 21:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Hi. I just noticed that one of the photos that the person uploaded I have seen somewhere else before and checked to see if there were any more problematic images. I asked what to do here [4] and just followed instructions after presenting evidence. I have had no malice towards the person who did them, but there is something fundamentally wrong about taking images and passing them off as their own. Especially the most blatant one of a photo of New York in the 1970s which they claimed was self-made, but they on their user page claim to be a "20 something photgrapher" - so unless they have a time machine, they could not have taken a photo of New York City then. The evidence was a pattern of behaviour, something that hopefully will change in future. I had no malice or no desire to have anyone banned, just wanted to make things right. I did not take unilateral action, I asked what was the proper thing to do after finding a problem. Die Profis - Die nächste Generation ( talk) 03:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Please do not edit pages on subjects you are not familiar with. Rotovia ( talk) 09:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply

lOOKIE another fake tour from an unreliable fan site, seconds after making that page they add the details to the Janet Jackson article. Same as last time. I didnt post this on the board because i didnt want to have to explain it all again. You know the history. This is getting detrimental to the Janet Jackson article. I know the main contributer is going to put it up for FA in a few weeks. This tour business has caused some instibility to that article. Realist² ( Come Speak To Me) 18:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hmm, odd, i really havent heard this from janets people, still, ok ill let it be. Thanx for looking into it. Cheers. Realist² ( Come Speak To Me) 20:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply

OK, wait 5-7 days, if janets proper site at island hasnt been updated by then it should probably go. Thanx for keeping an eye on this. If its legitimate then good, i cant wait lol. Realist² ( Come Speak To Me) 20:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Ah, great! We is landed. Good source, will add to the tour page and article make, wow, your one of the most helpful admins about. CHEERS!. Realist² ( Come Speak To Me) 23:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply

There does seem to be some confusion over the spelling of the tour name though. The single the tour is named after is Rock With U, however the source seems to have spelt it a different way. They might have got the spelling wrong, should the title be renamed forthcoming tour until we are sure of the spelling? Realist² ( Come Speak To Me) 23:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Ok, stick with the sources spelling for now. It also seems odd to name it after the single not the album, oh well, those jacksons always did have a few lose screws. Realist² ( Come Speak To Me) 23:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi there again, on the janet jackson talk page i have put forward the suggestion of a Janet Jackson wikiproject. If there is enough positive feedback ill go through with it. Im quite sure i can manage it but i was wondering if i could ask in advance, if i were to have any difficulties could you help get it lauched. There is no gaurantee it will go through, i need the support first and hopefully i can do it alone. I just dont want to let anyone down and hope its creation runs smoothly, thoughts? -- Realist² ( Come Speak To Me) 01:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Well sorrrrry. This person has vandalized A LOT and I know it is a student that goes to my school. Sometimes you have to be tough to get the point across. I think they've done a lot more "harassing" than I have." —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegaZega93 ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply

You left off the end of the sentence: However, confusing usernames are unlike the disallowed usernames above because a confusing username cannot be so inappropriate on its own that it requires an immediate block without at least an attempt at substantive discussion. KnightLago ( talk) 01:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Fine. You can be right. I don't care. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 01:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Why did you block User talk:Hashmi, Usman; Is the IP the same person? Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 02:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply

OK, I see, thanks for the link. Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 02:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I was unaware the IP was the same person editing. Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 02:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Which personal attacks ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.59.194 ( talk) 11:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for blocking Frizzle95. I've been revertiing his edits on Sandra Cisneros and Pokemon for ever. It was getting quite irritating, but I'm no admin ( and I'm okay). Cheers, Kodster ^{( heLLo) ( Me did that)} 19:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually he started it by leaving derogatory comments on my talk page which I deleted, please check this first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.59.194 ( talk) 20:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Would you like to cast your eye over my comment at the bottom of their page? I think this editor has got a bit of a raw deal here. Black Kite 22:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply

do you want to know what I am doing with the ball in my court? I am Making a deal. Altenhofen ( talk) 22:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Although he hasn't gone as he did earlier, TW is still continuing to be incivil and abusive, as well as making false accusations. [5] [6] His responses after his block do not appear to show any sort of change of heart or remorse over his earlier words. He also seems to be declaring he will ignore all policies and guidelines that I previously schooled him on before he went into attack mode, including WP:NONFREE. Should/Can anything else be done? -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 22:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey, sorry to keep bothering you. I'm trying like heck to disengage from TW, because he's just ticking me off at this point and being deliberately goading. It was getting to the point I'm getting a bit snarky back, so I finally just ended the "discussion" as it were and removed it from my talk page [7]. So he responds by adding a note to one of the AfDs [8]. I'm tired of dealing with him all together, but he just won't go away. Its getting hard to remember I'm supposed to be the adult and should just ignore his rantings. *argh* Any other ways to disengage? I'm trying to avoid responding to him in the open AfDs, but that just goaded him to the conversation above.  :( -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 16:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC) reply

As you have dealt with this user before i wondered if you could give your opinion on two accounts i suspect of being sockpuppets, based on the edits made Special:Contributions/Mariabrumana and Special:Contributions/79.1.134.5 compared to Special:Contributions/Torratte. Are the two former accounts being used to evade the block on the first? A checkuser was deemed 'likely' based on the edits but i'm still not sure whether it is worth a report. Thanks --neonwhite user page talk 00:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Went ahead and filed the rangeblock IP list. You might want to put my contributions page on your watch list, if you can- it would make the whole thing a lot easier to catch Hdayejr in the act. -- ChrisP2K5 ( talk) 04:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I would, except you can't watchlist someone elses contribs page... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 05:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

You can't? Surprised...seems to me like our friend Hdayejr was...-- ChrisP2K5 ( talk) 05:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

No, he just logs in and looks at your contribs list. You can't set it up to be watchlisted like you can a page. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 05:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

And I can kinda see why you wouldn't have something like that...one way ticket to cyberstalking. But I think that it might be a good tool to have for admins, to follow the activities of stalkers. That's my opinion, don't know if you share it. -- ChrisP2K5 ( talk) 05:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Not sure its techincally feasible, since the contribs page is a "special" page, which the MediaWiki software treats very differently than a standard Wiki page. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 05:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

No it is not that i'm doing so "slowly" in order to intentionally avoid any bloque. It is just that I am busy person and don't have time to edit wikipedia constantly ! JeanLatore ( talk) 13:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

[9]. Many other diffs of course, but I'm sure you are condoning his behavior. Isn't that called a "double standard" on this site? Do you even care? 99.201.142.207 ( talk) 18:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Very funny, Harvey. Hey, why don't you tell him about your new troll account next? -- ChrisP2K5 ( talk) 19:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

For some unknown reason, I had a block on my account that was lifted in short order. The notes seem to indicate the block may have been automatic. Since you were the admin who responded to my unblock request, I thought you might be able to answer my question. My talk page still has the responses/template, and I was wondering if it's alright to remove this. By the way, I've been a user for about a year and to my knowledge, have no violations of any kind, certainly none that would warrant a block. Thanks in advance and hope this was an appropriate way to deal with this. Allreet ( talk) 18:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Having heard no reply (we're all busy) and more important, having read the notice more carefully (always a good thing), I decided it's okay to clean up the page. Sorry if I cluttered up yours on such minor matters. Allreet ( talk) 06:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

It just passed FLC - thanks again for your help with the lead. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply

WHOO HOO!!-- Jayron32. talk. contribs 00:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I wasn't sure when it did, considering the Hdayejr IP sock edit that was included with the whole Qst vs. me debacle on the talk page. (If possible, can I get protection restored? I have a feeling that this isn't going to be the last I hear from him.) -- ChrisP2K5 ( talk) 04:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Thank you. -- ChrisP2K5 ( talk) 18:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello. I noticed your block tag on User_talk:119.94.3.120, but I didn't see the block log on that user. Can you help me clarify with this? Thanks E Wing ( talk) 14:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for unblocking me. 64.201.173.189 ( talk) 16:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Its me RIGHT NOW...-- Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Good Day Jayron32

You are disputing the neutrality of the article on Ray Joseph Cormier and encouraging readers to discuss the issue. Would you please start the discussion by explaining your point of view?

Peace

DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 19:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey Jayron, would you mind dropping in your opinion here? Thanks. Glass Cobra 01:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for blocking Gnewgnome. I would have myself but I am not an admin. I suggest he be blocked for a while for adding many templates asking for a request for sockpuppetry under false pretenses. Thank you! -- Ŵïllî§ï$2 ( ^Talk!/ _Cont.) 01:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

You should also make sure all of his contributions that are unconstructive are reverted. Thanks!!! -- Ŵïllî§ï$2 ( ^Talk!/ _Cont.) 01:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

WOrking on it. Thanks for your help.-- Jayron32. talk. contribs 01:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

If you take a look at the edit history, several other users have reverted his harfum additions, including administrator CloudNine. I am actually the last of four others to revert the edits. NSR77 ^T _C 01:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I have an eye on it. If it gets out of hand, SOMEONE will be blocked. I wouldn't worry about yourself tho... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 02:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey—what I am guess is a sockpuppet recently reverted my edits. I'm not keen on making accusations or preemptive assumptions, so I think you're the best person to look into this matter. Thanks. NSR77 ^T _C 19:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I assume you didn't mean to disenfranchise me? -- Dweller ( talk) 12:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry about that. I misread the situation. I'll fix that... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 12:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Cheers. Incidentally, and whimsically, I see you're a member of the BRC. As an ignorant Limey, I'm curious... is "bathrobe" an Americanism? What an interesting word. Do Americans wear a robe in the bath? Actually, since Americans don't have baths in their "bathroom"s, (NB what is the word for the room with a bath in American English?) I have an image of Americans taking baths wearing a robe in their toilets. No wonder showers are so popular. But what a shame for rubber ducks. -- Dweller ( talk) 14:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Lol. I shall think of Eddy Izzard next time I wear a dressing gown. (NB mine's only "fruity" when I've waited too long to wash it. Perhaps if I wore it in the bath...) :-) -- Dweller ( talk) 15:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC) PS Can I take a rest in your rest room? reply

Jayron, thanks for blocking User:PillowP. But it looks like s/he has created a sock puppet in the form of User:DerMetzgerMeister9; there has been more vandalism of WillowW's user talk page. Anything you can do? –  Scartol •  Tok 15:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I replied to your suggestion on the noticeboard regarding MJ archives, cheers. — Realist² ( Come Speak To Me) 00:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I was asking a question of him, not attempting to harrass him, and quite frankly his attitude towards me was not all that pleseant(sp?). I just want to know what his rational was for his comments. Dreamafter ( talk) 11:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your comment, Jayron. I have great regard for discussions and would not attempt to squelch them. This merge effort has been active for some time, however, and when I convinced the user who initiated it that it is not appropriate to merge GET which is fringe pseudoscience with Expanding Earth theory which is peer-reviewed though discredited, an additional proposal discussion has been initiated citing that the page does not merit its own entry. This is in disregard of the decision to keep the article and is indicating undue bias towards the page due to its nature. I only wished to bring this issue to attention and again am grateful for your comment. MichaelNetzer ( talk) 06:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Just a heads up. After your warning to DemolitionMan yesterday, he decided to continue reverting to the DavidYork71 edit on Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein. I've started a thread at WP:AN/I, WP:AN/I#User:DemolitionMan, to discuss his behaviour. Thanks. Leithp 11:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply

The June 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) 23:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply

The user you unblocked for advertising is at it again, see Informatics Malaysia. Matt ( talk) 10:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Archive1 Archive2 Archive3 Archive4 Archive5 Archive6 Archive8 Archive9 Archive10 Archive11 Archive12

I have cleaned the first 12 removing liable, BLP, soap box, forum and personal attacks. There are still another 6 to check, sorry this is taking so long, some of these archives are huge. Ill continue with the other 6 in due course. Cheers. — Realist² ( Come Speak To Me) 00:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, I have been working on an article titled Iowa High School Athletic Association. If you can find the time, would you please give it a look over? Bradenkeith ( talk) 19:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC) reply

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 8 - June 2008 May issue | July issue Project News There are currently 4,266 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 157 unreviewed articles. Out of 215 total nominations, 44 are on hold, 13 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Choctaw, One Night Stand (2007), Justin Tuck, Tristan Tzara, The Stake Out (Seinfeld episode), Impalement arts, Backlash (2007), Adelaide Rams, and Sam Cowan. The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11) The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 4 articles up for re-review. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details. GAN Reviewer of the Month Giggy ( talk · contribs) (a.k.a. Dihydrogen Monoxide ( talk · contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy ( talk · contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May include: Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs) Eustress ( talk · contribs) GaryColemanFan ( talk · contribs) Ice Cold Beer ( talk · contribs) Juliancolton ( talk · contribs) Nikki311 ( talk · contribs) ThinkBlue ( talk · contribs) Yllosubmarine ( talk · contribs) Also, with 19 nominations, Mitchazenia ( talk · contribs) is the nominator of the month, followed by TonyTheTiger ( talk · contribs) with 8 nominations submitted. Member News There are now 216 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 6 new members that joined during the month of April: Jack Bethune ( talk · contribs) Jordan Timothy James Busson ( talk · contribs) Limetolime ( talk · contribs) Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Fan ( talk · contribs) Mm40 ( talk · contribs) Redmarkviolinist ( 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! New GA Review Process - Review Subpages In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{ GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. [[Talk:Article/GA#]], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable. When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at WP:GAN in the appropriate category. When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{ GA nominee}} template on its talk page, and click on the link to start the review. When the reviewer clicks on that link, they will also see some instructions on how to start a review of a GAN. For new reviewers, there's also a link to the Good Article criteria, as well as to the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles page and the mentors list. Once an article is reviewed, the GA review page should be transcluded onto the main article talk page, by adding {{Talk:Article/GA#}} to the bottom of the talk page. This is to ensure maintain the transparency of the GA process, as well as to make editors of the article in question aware that the review is taking place. When an article is either passed or failed, there's really nothing different to do in the process, although reviewers are encouraged to utilize the {{ ArticleHistory}} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter. Did You Know... ... that there are slightly more than twice as many Good Articles (4,266) as there are Featured Articles? ... that Giggy has some really neat and useful tools to assist reviewers in conducting their reviews? ... that there are ten experienced reviewers listed on the GA mentors list that can offer assistance or a second opinion in reviewing articles? From the Editors A GA working party has initiated discussion on ways to improve the Good Article project and processes. The goal of the working party is to come up with suggestions for improvement based on recent issues and concerns raised in the past, primarily in the wake of the Great Green Dot Debate of May 2008. The discussion can be found here. Members of the working party include: Dank55 ( talk · contribs), Derek.cashman ( talk · contribs), EyeSerene ( talk · contribs), Giggy ( talk · contribs), Gwinva ( talk · contribs), LaraLove ( talk · contribs), Nehrams2020 ( talk · contribs), and OhanaUnited ( talk · contribs). Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor) Giggabot, Giggy (Distributor) 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 |

Delivered by the automated Giggabot ( stop!) 01:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

It appears you have a fan of your work. Have you requested a checkuser to find any other user names that are yet to be seen? APK ^{yada yada} 07:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron, you helped me once in the past on the FF5 article and I wanted to ask for your assistance again, that is if you have the time. How do you tell whether sites are official or not? There are two different sites editors are linking to on the article for the only place you can buy the XXX/Underground albums. One of them is being added by an IP and I'm assuming it is a marketing strategy but I'm not sure. I know absolutely nothing about DAC, so if you would look at it I would appreciate it. Thanks, and have a great day.

That was most likely a dumb question on my part. I guess it is irrelevant which one is official because neither should be there, right? Landon1980 ( talk) 20:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Archive more. So check it, some input from you, your greatness, would be appreciated here. Regards, LaraLove| Talk 03:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello. You would be interested in participating in the peer review of the Priory of Sion article? -- Loremaster ( talk) 11:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, I saw on the volunteer list that you're open to helping with peer reviews of some topics in American history. I've been working on sourcing this article in the hope of getting it to GA or FA level, but I know that it needs some other work as well. If you have a chance, could you please look it over and comment in its peer review? Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 23:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I think the user is back again despite his community ban. The new user User:SharpNail was created at 14:55 today, just two hours after his latest sockpuppet User:MaIl89 had his unblock refused. The new user has so far:

• Referred to User:Protagon on their talk page, who was the first person to bring a sockpuppetry case against User:M.V.E.i..
• Admitted that they are a sockpuppet account, albeit with claims that they will behave themselves this time.
• Continued a thread at Talk:Russians, which User:MaIl89 started
• Used very similar spelling/grammatical errors to previous incarnations.

Despite the user's insistence that they are making a clean start, this is clearly a block evasion. Do you think it's worth taking this to checkuser? I don't think we'll have much luck with the ban if it's already been broken after 2 hours! Papa November ( talk) 16:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply

FYI -- I had blocked this user a couple hours before you started the CU case and left that note on his talk page -- and now he's actually asking for his M.V.E.i. account back, so there's no question about identity (though sleeper socks are still quite a legitimate issue). What do you all think? I'm all for allowing former bad users to reform, if that's what they are really doing, but he doesn't quite seem to get why he was banned in the first place. Antandrus (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I am a little disappointed by your review of my block. I feel that the Wikipedia:Blocking policy has a place, if only to give editors confidence in the system, to have endorsed a block issued by an editor with whom I currently have three content disputes with, at Template:TardisIndexFile, CITV and Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_June_15, and who for most of this week has simply stalked me round the pedia is unsettling. I feel the least you should have done was to remove the block, and reissue it in accordace with policy. Fasach Nua ( talk) 11:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I am afraid I see no point in that. If the block was valid, the block was valid. There would be no net gain if I unblocked and instantly reblocked you; you still would have been unable to edit for the same amount of time. It would have been a pointless exercise. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 14:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

It is about confidence in the system, involved admins shouldnt invoke blocks, and if they do they shouldn't use lies to justify their actions. I would have felt a whole lot happier with an honest impartial administrator such as yourself, initiating the block, rather than a disruptive admin, who has been badgering me since I removed images from an article he owns. It is in the past but, I think it is something you should consider. Fasach Nua ( talk) 16:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Congratulations Timeline of chemistry has been selected as the WP:LOTM. It will appear in the WP:LOTD template for all of July as the LOTM and for two days as a LOTD. If you have any preference on a days during July let me know before June 24th. If you have any other lists that you feel should be nominated next month please ad them at User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/Nominees/200808.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 19:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply

THANKS!!!! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 02:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I was wondering if my protection of my talk page expired because there's been more harassment by Hdayejr IP socks. It's getting a little ridiculous now. Every time my protection expires, he goes at it again. -- ChrisP2K5 ( talk) 02:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC) reply

... grassy ass. APK ^{PRAISE JEEBUS} 01:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Not going to complain, but I had filed a checkuser request because the writing style seemed a little different, and Kurt Shaped Box felt uncomfortable deciding it was Soccermeko again before the checkuser completed.
Kww ( talk) 02:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry about that. It actually seemed rather obvious to me. I will unblock pending checkuser. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 02:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Do you have a magic button that can undo all the rollbacks I just did?
Kww ( talk) 02:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Nevermind. This post: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3ANicole_Wray&diff=221956308&oldid=210388331 looks very much like Soccermeko's MO (denying being a sock puppet before ever being accused thereof). Most importantly to me, is that he uses the same bogus sources as Soccermeko, the Changes article he recreated used the same bugus source which has no information about that album on it. If CU doesn't pan out, we can unblock, but I feel pretty confident on this one. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 02:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I noticed your were listed as a volunteer for per reviews. MJ is currently on PR and I would appreciate any advise you give. I plan to take it to FA soon. — Realist² ( Who's Bad?) 23:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi. I've been cleaning up after a vandal who's been working in some of the pop culture pages, notably pages for Six Flags and Universal parks. Things like changing attractions from open to closed, without citing any sources. There's only an IP address, but it's the same IP each and every time. Any suggestions would be appreciated. -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 02:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Pats 1971-1992 logo.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply

We have just entered condition yellow. Soccermeko is believed to be active, but his presence has not been confirmed.
Kww ( talk) 20:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Condition red.
Kww ( talk) 00:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Don't worry, I am not User:Soccermeko. I went through many edits and believe that he had posted a comment about "never editting wikipedia again". I believe that statement is true and that you need to unblock all user from that time up to this point. If you unblock them and never made an edit since then, then they are sockpuppets. 4.154.5.253 ( talk) 00:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I thought you were talking about me. 4.154.5.253 ( talk) 01:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC) reply

The July 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) 00:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Your image made it into an RFA thank spam :O - you can die really happy now. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 13:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey, cool. Congratz on the adminship BTW... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 00:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Not me, this guy... « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Wow, I don't even know that guy. That means that people are using my pic who I don't know. Which of course means that people are using my pic cuz its cool. Which makes me cool. Whoo hoo!!! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 00:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Woo hoo, Jayron is cool! Glass Cobra 00:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I started an article on Dan Nainan in my namespace page. i was working on it and trying to get it so it meets wikipedia guidlines. Someone took my article and put it on the main page and deleted my namespace. I reposted it on my namespace. so now it exits both in wikipedia and on my name space. My question is was this done by wikipedia or a 3rd party. And is it ok to have the article up and work on improving the article using your namespace page

Nerdypunkkid ( talk) 17:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Sure, there is nothing wrong with imoproving the article in your namespace, and then posting the improved version to the mainspace... However, be careful as other users may be also working on the mainspace version, please don't simply replace the existing version if it means destroying good work of others. Otherwise, there is no problem with working in your userspace and using it as a draft version. That's what its for! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 00:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of apartheid in Slovakia and the Czech Republic. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO ( talk) 17:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I anticipated this might happen, given the checkuser results. I did not take the "Unrelated" result lightly (although I also noticed the involvement of an open proxy in the same result).

1. I believe this passes the "quacks like a duck" test in any case.
2. User:Octavian history had previously threatened to suggested he could take measures to conceal his IP address ( [10], [11]). Personally I am surprised there hasn't been an earlier attempt at concealment.
3. Regarding his statement, "There are millions of people who beleive the same thing, and so many books about it". I suggest scanning Talk:Death of Marilyn Monroe and comparing how often this same assertion has been made, and by whom (here are some diff links [12], [13], [14], [15]).
4. The second and third edits made by the Joe1p1p account were to archive part of the Talk:Marilyn Monroe page. ( [16], [17]). This is a relatively advanced task for an ostensibly new user. The last person to archive the talk page ( [18], [19]), User:Star-in-law, had already been associated with the Octavian_history account. In both cases they removed (from the active talk page) discussions critical of the purported sex tape that was in the news a couple of months ago (see my comments on the RFCU page about this appearing to be "damage control").

-- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Howdy, I pulled your name off the peer review volunteers page. I've got an article on acid dissociation constants that I'd like to get up to A-Class under Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry and hoped you might be willing to take a look. Many thanks! EagleFalconn ( talk) 16:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Much appreciate the comments. I'll get on them tomorrow and drop you a line when I'm done. EagleFalconn ( talk) 04:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Just to let you know, I made an image for transfer of a proton at Image:ProtonTransfer.png. Let me know what you think -- I've got 3D models of the molecules, so I can make any molecule you want and take the pictures from any angle. Feel free to send people my way if they need custom images of such things. EagleFalconn ( talk) 03:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks a lot for rubbing salt on the wound. One more thing, I didn't appreciate your commentary following your decision to continue blocking me because I found it derogatory and disgusting. Thank god I do not have to hear from you ever again. Phew!!! HabsMTL ( talk) 04:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I am not sure what derogatory comments you are refering to. I declined your unblock request and noted that further violations of Wikipedia policy would result in further blocks. There was nothing untoward or derogatory in my comments. I have made one comment on your talk page: [20] and its contents are part of the public record. Please elaborate on how I was derogatory... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 04:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello, I am looking for someone to "adopt" me. Please get back to me A.S.A.P. I would be interested in maybe becoming an admin some day! NitrogenTSRH ( talk) 22:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Apologies for the late delivery; here is the June edition of the newsletter.

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 2, Issue 5 • 21 June 2008 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors	Features USRD gets showings at Hartford Road Meet Record 6 Wikipedians show up at Chicago Road Meet USRD hits 10,000 articles	State and national updates Leaderboard USH Colorado/ New Mexico Michigan Michigan County Designated Highways Nevada New York Utah 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. — Rschen7754bot ( talk) 20:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply