Again, I am most grateful for your continued interest in helping me with my article. I have just done some edititng by pruning and adding a couple of new external links and references. I am sure that my article still needs some work, especially in terms of formatting (with which I would welcome some expert help as I am not particularly skilled at that.) Needless to say, any comments and suggestions are most appreciated. Lg4 ( talk) 03:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your helpful recommendation that I add some independent sources to my references, which I now plan to do. Needless to say, I welcome any additional suggestions you may have.
Lg4 ( talk) 15:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I have now revised my initial article by adding more sources and references as well as some important scientific committee memberships, especially for the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), but perhaps that is superfluous as the article is not a CV.
I have still more I could add, especially references to many of my peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters. Please let me know your editorial suggestions in this regard.
And, again, many thanks!
Lg4 ( talk) 14:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your previous help,which I not only appreciated greatly but which obviously led me to do some major revision as you will see once you access my article, Lg4. But right now I must admit that I am a bit confused as to the next step I should take. Please advise! Thanks.
Lg4 ( talk) 01:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for recommending that I read about "conflict of interest", with which I fully agree. In response, I took note of ways of scaling down the amount of "filler" information that might be perceived as perhaps too self-promoting. In the same spirit, I have shortened the article and done some additional editing. If you feel I should still do more cutting, please let me know. Also, a there was a earlier comment to the effect that my article was "orphaned" and needed more links and refereces. Needless to say, I could redily add a few more external links and references, but in terms of internal references I wonder whether I should establish links to the names mentioned only in passing, such as mentors (e.g. Hebb), co-authors (e.g. Breznitz, Wallerstain, etc.) and others (e.g. Erik Erikson) the subject of one of the books mentioned. Again, I welcome any and all suggestions and recommendations...and thank you for your time and interest!
Lg4 ( talk) 23:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Well because I did not create that account and do not know the password for it, what can I do? 86.29.249.26 ( talk) 19:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey its me. I just want to know if you have any advice for an unblock? 86.29.241.83 ( talk) 18:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again for the prompt attention in removing the mess created by that repeat vandal on my discussion page, there is something that bugs me... since the vandals have so much free time on their hands, it makes me wonder about the kind of contribution they give to society as well as online communities such as Wikipedia. Such a shame for them to waste their time vandalizing when they could make a difference in life and towards the society. Heck, it never ceases to amaze me the kind of immature mentality that some human beings are willing to stoop so low to. Thanks and cheers again~! -- Dave1185 ( talk) 17:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I was beginning to lose hope, so your exposure of the DavidYork71 sock hereis very heartening. A big Thank You! Would you mind going a step further, and undoing all his edits? He also caused a great deal of damage at Pederastic relationships in classical antiquity and many other articles. Or would you prefer that I go through his edits and fix the mess myself on a case by case basis? Haiduc ( talk) 22:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey Jayron, would you be able to paste the contents of Why We Suck: A Feel Good Guide to Staying Fat, Loud, Lazy and Stupid to my talk page. Thanks a lot, 04:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Jayron. I took the liberty of adding your signature to this list. I hope that's alright. --- Sluzzelin talk 11:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
How did I make you look like an idiot, complete or otherwise? I corrected inaccurate info. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I know I'm not the most pleasant when dealing with disruptive editors, but I am thankful and gracious when someone goes out of their way to do something that benefits the 'pedia. I appreciate the headsup. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) ( talk) 04:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Needed, an editor to look over the formatting and content of Fast fashion. The article is currently in its primary stages of developement right now. Any suggestions, help, or questions are welcome!!! Help needed as soon as possible. Thanks
Smeast08 Smeast08 ( talk) 18:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC) 12:13 21 Novemeber 2008
Ok thanks, I appreciate your help!!! Smeast08 ( talk) 21:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Please correct the date as the BFR was taken out of circulation in 2000 and the 500 BFR was discontinued in 2002. So 2008 is an impossible date. Thanks Zyclop ( talk) 04:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Please look up EURO and the time-line. I cannot edit the page; is secured. Otherwise I would have done so. Thanks. Zyclop ( talk) 05:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
WP:CIV, please. CSHunt68 ( talk) 05:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jayron32, I want to say thank you for letting me back on wikipedia. I promise to behave and keep wikipedia safe. Also I will not create anymore sockpuppets at all. Plyjacks ( talk) 15:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jayron, are you going to reply here? If not, I would like to remove the message so others don't post their messages there. Thanks and best regards, -- ChrisiPK ( talk) 20:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Everywhere I turn today I seem to find your comments. Just to say they're appreciated, O wise one. :) Gwinva ( talk) 03:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I see you've had to warn this user about vandalism to Days of Our Lives related articles. I believe he/she is using this IP --> 85.226.75.52 to circumvent the block. Editing style is the same, and articles are similar. I am unfamiliar with sockpuppetry reports. Just thought I would bring it to your attention. Thank you. Rm994 ( talk) 06:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
User is still circumventing the blocks with similar IP's at EJ Wells, Nicole Walker, and Sami Brady. What can we do? Rm994 ( talk) 05:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Jayron. Those questions I've asked are mine. I ain't making any conclusion, but rather pointing out (IMHO) the core of the Giano -VS- Administrators/Arbitrations long running fight. GoodDay ( talk) 20:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I was recently interacting with Babakexorramdin ( talk · contribs), and decided to check the contributions for the user. The page redirects to another page Kamranmirza ( talk · contribs), and it shows no contributions whatsoever (all of the user's contributions and block are logged in the pre-redirected page for Babakexorramdin). This seems honky, but might just be a misstep by the user. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
You have reprimanded user Factcheckeratyourservice for "edit warring" at Sarah Palin. I'd have thought that your sysoppian power is allied to various responsibilities. Among them, surely, the exercise of intelligence in the execution of whatever you might see as your policing duties.
If you'd taken the trouble to read the SP talk page before you started throwing your weight around elsewhere you'd know that for some time now Factcheckeratyourservice has been attempting, with almost superhuman patience, to deal with a couple of other SP contributors who are totally intractable. Both are exponents of incivility and obdurate non-collaboration as instruments of force to overcome any reasoned arguments that support additions or changes they don't want. One in particular habitually reverts material from the article while refusing to explain why. (Note Factchecker's despairing SP talk observation: "...as of yesterday, Tom [user Threeafterthree] has deleted the entire rape kit section at least 22 separate times, without much discussion other than "this is irrelevant" or "this goes in the Fannon bio".)
It's entirely unrealistic to order Factchecker (and Threeafterthree) to engage in discussion at the talk page to resolve differences when even a cursory read of the interactions at talk proves that Factchecker and user Anarchangel, for example, have already tried this course. They have tried and tried and tried.
If you really want to help, swing by the SP talk page and use your SuperSysopPerson power to impose some conditions that will actually enable the discussion to get somewhere. Your orders to continue a process that has already failed are futile, if not downright counter-productive, in the absence of intervention.
Thank you. — Writegeist ( talk) 19:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Fair enough, but the net effect of your intervention has been to allow TaT's deletion to stand unchallenged. I think you were wrong to warn us both yet leave his last deletion un-reverted. I would have preferred it if you had simply reverted it yourself and then blocked BOTH of us. Factchecker atyourservice ( talk) 01:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jayron32,
I've noted that your name appears on the list of volunteers for peer review. I would greatly appreciate if you could have a look at
Masters Tournament and give me some suggestions on how to improve the article
here. Prose related issues would be even more greatly appreciated :). Thanks for your time!
Grover
mj 08:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a sock, you edited a case in which I'm trying to clear my name.
If you don't want to look...Good...Don't touch it and let someone else look, I'm trying to clear my account. If I WAS a damn sock I'd just change screennames without a fight, that is my only account and I want it back.
-- 67.160.51.32 ( talk) 02:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your time, I'm not a short-tempered guy but he was really starting to annoy me... Anyway, I'm leaning towards the opinion that semi-protection won't stop him in the long run. He started harassing me because the block extension apparently got to him, maybe he'd "get the message" if his evasion block got extended? He's not Wikipedia-wise and probably thinks noone even knows he's behind it. :P -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 21:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with User:Reality Maker. If you would, could you check their contributions. I don't think that their other images are public domain, or whatever he claims, either but the whole image licensing thing confuses me to no end. Thanks again, Dismas| (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The
December 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.
Automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 02:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Nice work; I was hoping someone who had more time than me would finish that section off!!!! Dafoeberezin3494 ( talk) 22:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Jayron.
A request for peer review was made for the article Moscow Gold. Seeing as you seem to be pretty active, experienced, and interested in history, maybe you might like to take a look at it. The article was translated from Spanish, but its coverage is pretty extensive. I personally think it could attain featured article status with some work - what do you think?-- CarlosPatiño ( talk) 23:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you please protect List of Days of Our Lives Cast Members? Multiple IP's have been vandalizing, and it's hard to keep a handle on it. Thanks. Rm994 ( talk) 21:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I much prefered your original title as well - made me giggle somewhat :). There's so much Wikidrama around that I see nothing bad when it comes to a bit of light-hearted joking, when it's appropriate. Talk Islander 22:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
HarleyLocal605 has attempted to do a copy and paste move to Daisho Con sans the AFD notice. I've undone the move since it was inappropriate. But now he has left a personal attack on my talk page because of my reverts. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFarix ( talk • contribs)
Uninvolved editor:
I see that you requested a RFCU on this person and Langford88. It does look like possible block evasion. It could be 2 high school friends, the second one who got the idea after talking with his friend about being blocked (the blocked person could have mentioned in passing the articles that he wrote thus giving the second person the idea).
The biggest redeeming factor is that you wrote that HarleyLocal605 was "He took exception to this, harassed a few editors (including me)". Langford88 has clearly not done this. So even if they are the same person, a lesson has been learned.
The question then becomes if you want to uphold Wikipedia rules to the letter and block Langford88 or whether you want to assume that the lesson of not harrassing people has been learned and allow Langford88 to edit. If the latter is the case, then withdrawal of RFCU is the thing to do to save checkuser time and effort.
I don't have an opinion either way but this is how I analyzed the situation. Chergles ( talk) 22:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I might note that one very popular ArbCom candidate said that if a productive editor evades a ban, they don't automatically have to be blocked. I don't have an opinion on this either way but this is what I read yesterday. Chergles ( talk) 22:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. As I said, I was making an observation, not asking for more harsh or less harsh actions. I was just brainstorming (when one says a lot of possibilities without being afraid of saying them; this sometimes results in one of them making a lot of sense. If one is afraid to say things, sometimes good solutions can be overlooked).
Part of the brainstorming was to reduce the checkuser's workload.
What I like about considering only the content of the edit is the evidence is black and white. There is no guesswork on the part of the checkuser. We just consider the edits. The problem with that is considering edits requires a brain.
Once again, thanks for your reply. I'm not asking you to do anything one way or another. I just saw your checkuser request, that's all. Chergles ( talk) 17:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The Daisho Con entry is pretty much a crap pile right now. I'd like to see it deleted and restarted, or just wiped clean. What concerns me though is that it's up for deletion due to lack of notability. I'd like to cross reference this to you to hear your thoughts, as I don't find the inclusion criteria to be the issue at hand:
I would just like to point out that the 3rd party media coverage of Daisho Con, specifically found here: [4] does indeed satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The same story is linked to by several other indipendent/reliable news sources as well i.e. Green Bay Press Gazette: [5]
Wikipedia's inclusion criteria does not have a minimum number of coverage stories, only that they present "Significant coverage" (address the subject directly in detail, etc.) Something to keep in mind is that this is a first year convention. It's not going to have CNN knocking at the door, or a ton of other coverage for that matter. This shouldn't be held against Daisho Con's entry when it comes to notability/inclusion.
Also, entries such as No Brand Con: [6] are referenced entirely from animecons.com information...which no one has taken an issue with, including TheFarix who has done some work on that entry himself?
Please give me your feedback/recommendation. It is appreciated VicFlik ( talk) 08:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the tips, I'm trying to familiarize myself with Wikipedia a bit more which is why I'm bringing this up to you and others with experience.
VicFlik (
talk) 06:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
You made a great comment and gave helpful advice on how anyone should use Wikipedia. Thank you for your words. Thomprod ( talk) 15:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Just curious... I left a note on the RD Talk page to tell editors that they shouldn't respond to the troll. You deleted the warning and responded. Is there some other wording I could have used that would have done a better job at keeping you from responding to the troll? -- kainaw ™ 14:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
But the principle "No-consensus in any discussion should ALWAYS preserve the status quo. In an MFD, the status quo is the existence of the article" was not obeyed in the User:Apovolot MfD decision - so what could be done to correct and undo that deletion mistake ? Apovolot ( talk) 17:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
You just have said: "and administrators are supposed to take into account the content of comments, not simply the number of votes. It is not enough to simply count the votes and decide that "5 were for and 5 were against, so there is no consensus". The nature and content of the discussion should inform administrator's decision" - but Airvant didn't use this principle in Drv closing decision - in fact Airvant did'nt give any other (than "no consensus") rational for his decision. You also have said: "please start a deletion review discussion" - yes I want to do this - could you point me to process description, please. Apovolot ( talk) 18:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC) So do I have a formal avenue to appeal again the original Mfd - if so, how this could be done ? Apovolot ( talk) 18:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I have edited and sacled down mmy article, but have not heard back from anyone. What is the next step? What further step might I take? Have do I deal with the comment that the article is "orphaned" and that it needs "clean-up"? Again, thanks for your help! Lg4 ( talk) 02:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you kindly keep an eye over Hinduism and Buddhism article on the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Buddhism_and_Hinduism&action=history
The other editor Mitsube appears to be very aggressive and is undoing edits without properly discussing them. He appears to be biased as he continues to suppress well referenced edits which do not seem to agree with his thesis.
I have been trying to avoid an edit war and would appreciate some moderation. Thanks.-- Satyashodak ( talk) 21:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jayron, Thanks for getting in touch. To be honest, I'm a little confused. Obviously, I've been putting up a lot of links to one site, however all of the content that is being put up is both relevant and useful. As such, why would it be considered spam? Please advise.
Also, have my edits been removed? I look forward to hearing from you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psch1986 ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice Jayron. So how can I put up content from the site without sourcing it as in most cases it was genuinely enriching the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psch1986 ( talk • contribs) 22:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
83.108.25.133 – from Norway, editing Bryan Adams articles, making the same types of spelling errors, claiming to know how discographies should be formatted. Case closed, I'd say. — Zeagler ( talk) 20:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
He continues to edit: 80.212.228.54. — Zeagler ( talk) 22:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you with this but I suspect User:Be Black Hole Sun is editing again as User:QotSA. The editing style, subject matter and a knack for inaccuracy are all very similar. Piriczki ( talk) 16:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Two more: RECORDCharts and Wiki libs 2. — Zeagler ( talk) 18:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Jayron, thank you so much for pitching in on my search for this "Prof. G[e]rashchenko." Seems like my next avenue of inquiry leads to the Majdanek museum, with my hopes raised by mention (on the Majdanek page) of work done in 2005 by someone on their staff. Meanwhile, I'd like you to know your RD response had quite an impact you couldn't have known: I first read your reply in the middle of my 2-1/2 hour demonstration of Wikipedia to a group of nine educators in a state-sponsored program helping teenage dropouts in Galilee communities get their h.s. equivalency. (Incidentally, two former CIS immigrants among the teachers were quite emphatic that Viktor Gerashchenko is Jewish, no less!) Anyway, my effort—voluntary, like all I do in WP—is just getting off the ground...and if these teachers' enthusiasm is any indication of what's ahead, I believe this will snowball and fulfill its potential for doing a lot of good for all concerned. So keep up the good work; you do us proud! -- Cheers, Deborahjay ( talk) 18:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Can we remove all links and all mentions of The Library Corporation in Wikipedia?? There are too many SPAM links!! -- Raysonho ( talk) 15:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
This is from SirsiDynix - They keep deleting us and only leaving their links. I am adding The Library Corporation and ALL links to the companies. Raysonho seems to ONLY want SirsiDynix on there - Please do not let him run a monopoly on Wiki!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Look at this edits - he only leaves SirsiDynix - I am trying to include everyone!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Trillium608 (
talk •
contribs) 18:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
This is from SirsiDynix - They keep deleting us and only leaving their links. I am adding The Library Corporation and ALL links to the companies. Raysonho seems to ONLY want SirsiDynix on there - Please do not let him run a monopoly on Wiki!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks Trillium608 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trillium608 ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is SirsiDynix allowed to be on there and The Library Corporation is not? Raysoho works for SirsiDynix!! Please include all library software companies - which is what I'm trying to do. My links are not inappropriate - Raysoho is trying to only have his company on here - ALL should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trillium608 ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I sigh as well, but I suspect for different reasons. I just wanted to be sure that you noticed my response.— Kww( talk) 22:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I noticed your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Permanent is sharp-P-complete. I have got to start using "Clusterfuck" as a discussion result more often. Maybe we should get Mr.Z-man to add it to his Afd-closing script! Anyway, thanks for the laugh. (Oh, and not that it's necessary, but you made the right call.)-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 09:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Have a look at yes and no. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard ( talk) 16:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
You'd be interested in RFCU on Tajik results, see section's 14 and 15. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I sincerely appreciate it, especially that I need to patrol for vandalism. Thank you! Optakeover ( talk) 04:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Jay, have a great and safe Christmas. I hope Santa brings you everything you want :-) Scarian Call me Pat! 12:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; at some point, our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!
BorgQueen ( talk) 05:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Jayron32,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)
All the Best.
«l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»
(talk)
I don't mean to have a go at you by pointing this out, but it does bug me somewhat:
I hope my point's fairly clear. Talk Islander 15:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I have been reviewing the discussion, and see that we have generally moved into the realms of "how can we accommodate BC in future/how to we get BC to comply with restrictions" - which is all well and good, but I don't see a consensus that he should be unblocked! I see almost no opposes against my original indefinite block notice, and the unblock discussion promoted by you was closed as no consensus; therefore I think a consensus was established for the current block. Subsequently BC made his statement, and a good number of people argued that an unblock should be considered but not (in my view) sufficient to change the recently established consensus for the block.
To allow the discussion regarding the terms under which Betacommand may return to editing to develop to a consensus, I think there has to be a determination given that BC remains under indefinite block pending a change in consensus and that this needs to be stated clearly at WP:ANI. I think that it might be best if it were to be made by you, and/or Ryan Postlethwaite (who I will be copying this message) than by me as the blocking admin. This would allow the community to focus on how BC may be allowed to return (I favour the status quo; the restrictions worked because only by the block was BC forced to reconsider his actions) and BC to address the issues. As the block is indefinite, then when a sysop is prepared to unblock they can bring the matter to ANI and present their case, and enact the unblock upon reaching consensus.
If you, together with Ryan if considered necessary, feel that a "resolved, Betacommand indefinitely blocked" template should be placed upon the matter please do not feel it necessary to confirm to me - but I am otherwise open to discuss anything arising from this suggestion. Cheers.
LessHeard vanU (
talk) 20:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
For your outstandingly excellent admin work and your civility/politeness as well as your exemplary tone. Thank you for all that, Jayron. — Aitias // discussion 05:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC) |
Would you be kind enough to unblock Lightbot? I will not use the bot to unlink common units of measurement until the RFC has concluded. But there are many other good tasks that it can do. Lightmouse ( talk) 20:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937. Any inputs you can offer would be appreciated! Thanks. Foofighter20x ( talk) 04:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
You are a user who responded to RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. As someone interested in the discussion a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. — BQZip01 — talk 23:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Jayron32. There is a new contest for U.S. and Canada roads that you may be interested in. To sign up or for more information, please visit User:Rschen7754/USRDCRWPCup. The contest begins Saturday at 00:00 UTC. Regards, Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The
January 2009 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) 02:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
London Force is a real band! and as a founding member I resent that you deleted its Wikipedia page which while it may have been semi-incorrect information was a valuable addition to the Wikipedia community and I am not happy with the way you mis-treated our page. -respectfully M. West 71.184.93.49 ( talk) 19:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You don't know me. Nobody knows anybody here, and I'm nobody, to boot. I just felt the need to tell you what I'm thinking about your demeanor on the reference desks. You come off a little " bitey". I like sarcstic humor much better than the next guy, truth be told, but it's out of place there, sadly. Here's an example. I hope you'll take this message as a friendly nudge toward a higher standard of refdesk hospitality and professionalism. The refdesk interfaces Wikipedians with the public, and we want to create a good (if admittedly bland) impression. -- Milkbreath ( talk) 17:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
keeps adding untruth statments to Carly Corinthos and Jasper Jacks. I have revisted his edits and undid them. When i leave he just redoes them. -- M42380 ( talk) 02:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, on November 15th we had a conversation about a sockpuppet vandal, and you were very helpful. I have another candidate, possibly the same fellow with a new hat, here. Can you check him out or is there an official way of doing these things? Thanks, -- Haiduc ( talk) 21:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I promise you in not a BBHS. Please isn't it a way to prove that i'm not BBHS, because i know i'm not BBHS and i want you and any other user in wikipedia to know i'm not guilty of this charge. Please help me with this one, please. I'm not a BBHS. A solution is all i want, nothing else, so please let me prove that i'm not a BBHS. Retrospective III —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.54.130 ( talk) 18:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Your question was removed and I haven't seen it. What was the question? [I am in no way committing to give you an answer.] Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your time you have invested to study me on Wikipedia and thank you for the accuse ;)Matter of fact I don’t have another account currently and yes it’s true I am not any new to Wikipedia. I was a frequent editor for like a year ago and I think I just lost the password ;) — Wiikkiiwriter ( talk) 02:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Unless the editor Wikkiiwriter is an administrator, should he be answering requests as tho he is???? also. how can I check his contributions. Thank you...-- Buster7 ( talk) 02:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It didn't take long after you removed the page protection for the vandals to return. Niteshift36 ( talk) 01:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Given what you wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No, you might like to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No (2nd nomination). Uncle G ( talk) 21:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of James Scott Cooper at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jappalang ( talk) 00:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jayron32. First, thanks for taking the time to respond to my help desk question. Some time ago, another admin suggested I submit something to the Essay section. I've been working on it a little bit, and wanted to get some other opinions. The article in question is here. I wanted to get some other opinions before I even looked at how to submit it. While I am familiar with how to create an article, I'm not really sure what procedures are involved for the essay part which fall outside the normal Wikipedia namespace. (I hope I'm using the proper terminology here). Thanks again, I hope I've explained a little better this time. Ched ( talk) 06:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for any confusion caused by my editing of "Presidency of Barack Obama". You accused me of "vandalizing" the page. If it is your opinion that it is "vandalism" to remove the INCREDIBLY RACIST photo I found on that site of a gorilla instead of Prsident Obama, then I plead guilty of vandalism. I'd rather be a vandal than allow such gutter racism to stand on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.22.137 ( talk) 12:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
hi Jayron 32 some monthe back we dicussed this now i habe been able to make a stub. could you help me with some translation doubts? which are marled by / or (..)in the text or may be you know whom to ask. see as well the discussion of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_bankruptcy thanks -- Stefanbcn ( talk) 20:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
FYI, you recently dealt with an editor who has been banned and repeatedly blocked due to his relentless self-promotion. Harvardlaw ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), aka David J Silver. I've indef blocked the latest account and put a long term block on the IP. Will Beback talk 16:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
tahnks for your indication
i hope i have put it here correctly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Translation/National_bankruptcy
-- Stefanbcn ( talk) 02:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I was childish. You gave me a very good opportunity to look back on myself. I made up my mind to have a conversation with Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk · contribs). I don't spare my efforts to realize mutual understanding with Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk · contribs). -- Bukubku ( talk) 05:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I posted a response on the talk page with a link to the AIV report diff. I have also contacted the user who made the AIV report for clarification. Daniel Case ( talk) 17:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I reverted him again for adding the non-free picture into Matt Smith (British actor), and left what I feel is an acceptable explanation, but since you were involved with the unblock process I thought you might want to try and head off the problem before he becomes indistinguishable from a SPA. I just don't think he's going to listen to me, since he already removed several explanations by me with no comment (or one with a very flamy comment). Templarion ( talk) 03:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. If you are happy to unblock, then I have no objections (if you have not done so already). LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. This user, who you blocked, has asked me to be unblocked. He's currently editing anyway as User:whirl editing. Technically this new account should have been blocked as block evasion. I'm not exactly willing to help him if he's been sending abusive emails about me. The JPS talk to me 16:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look at the note I left at User talk:Matt72in. Although I support sustaining the block, the reason you gave -- that it was to evade a block for another account -- doesn't quite mesh with the timing. -- EEMIV ( talk) 03:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Jay, thanks for taking the time to comment on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. I am glad you see how important this guideline will be, since it will determine the inclusion or exclusion of television character and television episodes. I could tell your points were thought out, and they came across as very intelligent Ikip ( talk) 04:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Your name is being brought up here: MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-details#Add_notice_to_advertise_WP:FICT.27s_adoption_as_a_guideline Ikip ( talk) 06:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, I am most grateful for your continued interest in helping me with my article. I have just done some edititng by pruning and adding a couple of new external links and references. I am sure that my article still needs some work, especially in terms of formatting (with which I would welcome some expert help as I am not particularly skilled at that.) Needless to say, any comments and suggestions are most appreciated. Lg4 ( talk) 03:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your helpful recommendation that I add some independent sources to my references, which I now plan to do. Needless to say, I welcome any additional suggestions you may have.
Lg4 ( talk) 15:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I have now revised my initial article by adding more sources and references as well as some important scientific committee memberships, especially for the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), but perhaps that is superfluous as the article is not a CV.
I have still more I could add, especially references to many of my peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters. Please let me know your editorial suggestions in this regard.
And, again, many thanks!
Lg4 ( talk) 14:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your previous help,which I not only appreciated greatly but which obviously led me to do some major revision as you will see once you access my article, Lg4. But right now I must admit that I am a bit confused as to the next step I should take. Please advise! Thanks.
Lg4 ( talk) 01:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for recommending that I read about "conflict of interest", with which I fully agree. In response, I took note of ways of scaling down the amount of "filler" information that might be perceived as perhaps too self-promoting. In the same spirit, I have shortened the article and done some additional editing. If you feel I should still do more cutting, please let me know. Also, a there was a earlier comment to the effect that my article was "orphaned" and needed more links and refereces. Needless to say, I could redily add a few more external links and references, but in terms of internal references I wonder whether I should establish links to the names mentioned only in passing, such as mentors (e.g. Hebb), co-authors (e.g. Breznitz, Wallerstain, etc.) and others (e.g. Erik Erikson) the subject of one of the books mentioned. Again, I welcome any and all suggestions and recommendations...and thank you for your time and interest!
Lg4 ( talk) 23:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Well because I did not create that account and do not know the password for it, what can I do? 86.29.249.26 ( talk) 19:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey its me. I just want to know if you have any advice for an unblock? 86.29.241.83 ( talk) 18:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again for the prompt attention in removing the mess created by that repeat vandal on my discussion page, there is something that bugs me... since the vandals have so much free time on their hands, it makes me wonder about the kind of contribution they give to society as well as online communities such as Wikipedia. Such a shame for them to waste their time vandalizing when they could make a difference in life and towards the society. Heck, it never ceases to amaze me the kind of immature mentality that some human beings are willing to stoop so low to. Thanks and cheers again~! -- Dave1185 ( talk) 17:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I was beginning to lose hope, so your exposure of the DavidYork71 sock hereis very heartening. A big Thank You! Would you mind going a step further, and undoing all his edits? He also caused a great deal of damage at Pederastic relationships in classical antiquity and many other articles. Or would you prefer that I go through his edits and fix the mess myself on a case by case basis? Haiduc ( talk) 22:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey Jayron, would you be able to paste the contents of Why We Suck: A Feel Good Guide to Staying Fat, Loud, Lazy and Stupid to my talk page. Thanks a lot, 04:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Jayron. I took the liberty of adding your signature to this list. I hope that's alright. --- Sluzzelin talk 11:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
How did I make you look like an idiot, complete or otherwise? I corrected inaccurate info. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I know I'm not the most pleasant when dealing with disruptive editors, but I am thankful and gracious when someone goes out of their way to do something that benefits the 'pedia. I appreciate the headsup. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) ( talk) 04:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Needed, an editor to look over the formatting and content of Fast fashion. The article is currently in its primary stages of developement right now. Any suggestions, help, or questions are welcome!!! Help needed as soon as possible. Thanks
Smeast08 Smeast08 ( talk) 18:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC) 12:13 21 Novemeber 2008
Ok thanks, I appreciate your help!!! Smeast08 ( talk) 21:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Please correct the date as the BFR was taken out of circulation in 2000 and the 500 BFR was discontinued in 2002. So 2008 is an impossible date. Thanks Zyclop ( talk) 04:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Please look up EURO and the time-line. I cannot edit the page; is secured. Otherwise I would have done so. Thanks. Zyclop ( talk) 05:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
WP:CIV, please. CSHunt68 ( talk) 05:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jayron32, I want to say thank you for letting me back on wikipedia. I promise to behave and keep wikipedia safe. Also I will not create anymore sockpuppets at all. Plyjacks ( talk) 15:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jayron, are you going to reply here? If not, I would like to remove the message so others don't post their messages there. Thanks and best regards, -- ChrisiPK ( talk) 20:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Everywhere I turn today I seem to find your comments. Just to say they're appreciated, O wise one. :) Gwinva ( talk) 03:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I see you've had to warn this user about vandalism to Days of Our Lives related articles. I believe he/she is using this IP --> 85.226.75.52 to circumvent the block. Editing style is the same, and articles are similar. I am unfamiliar with sockpuppetry reports. Just thought I would bring it to your attention. Thank you. Rm994 ( talk) 06:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
User is still circumventing the blocks with similar IP's at EJ Wells, Nicole Walker, and Sami Brady. What can we do? Rm994 ( talk) 05:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Jayron. Those questions I've asked are mine. I ain't making any conclusion, but rather pointing out (IMHO) the core of the Giano -VS- Administrators/Arbitrations long running fight. GoodDay ( talk) 20:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I was recently interacting with Babakexorramdin ( talk · contribs), and decided to check the contributions for the user. The page redirects to another page Kamranmirza ( talk · contribs), and it shows no contributions whatsoever (all of the user's contributions and block are logged in the pre-redirected page for Babakexorramdin). This seems honky, but might just be a misstep by the user. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
You have reprimanded user Factcheckeratyourservice for "edit warring" at Sarah Palin. I'd have thought that your sysoppian power is allied to various responsibilities. Among them, surely, the exercise of intelligence in the execution of whatever you might see as your policing duties.
If you'd taken the trouble to read the SP talk page before you started throwing your weight around elsewhere you'd know that for some time now Factcheckeratyourservice has been attempting, with almost superhuman patience, to deal with a couple of other SP contributors who are totally intractable. Both are exponents of incivility and obdurate non-collaboration as instruments of force to overcome any reasoned arguments that support additions or changes they don't want. One in particular habitually reverts material from the article while refusing to explain why. (Note Factchecker's despairing SP talk observation: "...as of yesterday, Tom [user Threeafterthree] has deleted the entire rape kit section at least 22 separate times, without much discussion other than "this is irrelevant" or "this goes in the Fannon bio".)
It's entirely unrealistic to order Factchecker (and Threeafterthree) to engage in discussion at the talk page to resolve differences when even a cursory read of the interactions at talk proves that Factchecker and user Anarchangel, for example, have already tried this course. They have tried and tried and tried.
If you really want to help, swing by the SP talk page and use your SuperSysopPerson power to impose some conditions that will actually enable the discussion to get somewhere. Your orders to continue a process that has already failed are futile, if not downright counter-productive, in the absence of intervention.
Thank you. — Writegeist ( talk) 19:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Fair enough, but the net effect of your intervention has been to allow TaT's deletion to stand unchallenged. I think you were wrong to warn us both yet leave his last deletion un-reverted. I would have preferred it if you had simply reverted it yourself and then blocked BOTH of us. Factchecker atyourservice ( talk) 01:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jayron32,
I've noted that your name appears on the list of volunteers for peer review. I would greatly appreciate if you could have a look at
Masters Tournament and give me some suggestions on how to improve the article
here. Prose related issues would be even more greatly appreciated :). Thanks for your time!
Grover
mj 08:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a sock, you edited a case in which I'm trying to clear my name.
If you don't want to look...Good...Don't touch it and let someone else look, I'm trying to clear my account. If I WAS a damn sock I'd just change screennames without a fight, that is my only account and I want it back.
-- 67.160.51.32 ( talk) 02:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your time, I'm not a short-tempered guy but he was really starting to annoy me... Anyway, I'm leaning towards the opinion that semi-protection won't stop him in the long run. He started harassing me because the block extension apparently got to him, maybe he'd "get the message" if his evasion block got extended? He's not Wikipedia-wise and probably thinks noone even knows he's behind it. :P -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 21:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with User:Reality Maker. If you would, could you check their contributions. I don't think that their other images are public domain, or whatever he claims, either but the whole image licensing thing confuses me to no end. Thanks again, Dismas| (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The
December 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.
Automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 02:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Nice work; I was hoping someone who had more time than me would finish that section off!!!! Dafoeberezin3494 ( talk) 22:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Jayron.
A request for peer review was made for the article Moscow Gold. Seeing as you seem to be pretty active, experienced, and interested in history, maybe you might like to take a look at it. The article was translated from Spanish, but its coverage is pretty extensive. I personally think it could attain featured article status with some work - what do you think?-- CarlosPatiño ( talk) 23:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you please protect List of Days of Our Lives Cast Members? Multiple IP's have been vandalizing, and it's hard to keep a handle on it. Thanks. Rm994 ( talk) 21:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I much prefered your original title as well - made me giggle somewhat :). There's so much Wikidrama around that I see nothing bad when it comes to a bit of light-hearted joking, when it's appropriate. Talk Islander 22:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
HarleyLocal605 has attempted to do a copy and paste move to Daisho Con sans the AFD notice. I've undone the move since it was inappropriate. But now he has left a personal attack on my talk page because of my reverts. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFarix ( talk • contribs)
Uninvolved editor:
I see that you requested a RFCU on this person and Langford88. It does look like possible block evasion. It could be 2 high school friends, the second one who got the idea after talking with his friend about being blocked (the blocked person could have mentioned in passing the articles that he wrote thus giving the second person the idea).
The biggest redeeming factor is that you wrote that HarleyLocal605 was "He took exception to this, harassed a few editors (including me)". Langford88 has clearly not done this. So even if they are the same person, a lesson has been learned.
The question then becomes if you want to uphold Wikipedia rules to the letter and block Langford88 or whether you want to assume that the lesson of not harrassing people has been learned and allow Langford88 to edit. If the latter is the case, then withdrawal of RFCU is the thing to do to save checkuser time and effort.
I don't have an opinion either way but this is how I analyzed the situation. Chergles ( talk) 22:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I might note that one very popular ArbCom candidate said that if a productive editor evades a ban, they don't automatically have to be blocked. I don't have an opinion on this either way but this is what I read yesterday. Chergles ( talk) 22:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. As I said, I was making an observation, not asking for more harsh or less harsh actions. I was just brainstorming (when one says a lot of possibilities without being afraid of saying them; this sometimes results in one of them making a lot of sense. If one is afraid to say things, sometimes good solutions can be overlooked).
Part of the brainstorming was to reduce the checkuser's workload.
What I like about considering only the content of the edit is the evidence is black and white. There is no guesswork on the part of the checkuser. We just consider the edits. The problem with that is considering edits requires a brain.
Once again, thanks for your reply. I'm not asking you to do anything one way or another. I just saw your checkuser request, that's all. Chergles ( talk) 17:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The Daisho Con entry is pretty much a crap pile right now. I'd like to see it deleted and restarted, or just wiped clean. What concerns me though is that it's up for deletion due to lack of notability. I'd like to cross reference this to you to hear your thoughts, as I don't find the inclusion criteria to be the issue at hand:
I would just like to point out that the 3rd party media coverage of Daisho Con, specifically found here: [4] does indeed satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The same story is linked to by several other indipendent/reliable news sources as well i.e. Green Bay Press Gazette: [5]
Wikipedia's inclusion criteria does not have a minimum number of coverage stories, only that they present "Significant coverage" (address the subject directly in detail, etc.) Something to keep in mind is that this is a first year convention. It's not going to have CNN knocking at the door, or a ton of other coverage for that matter. This shouldn't be held against Daisho Con's entry when it comes to notability/inclusion.
Also, entries such as No Brand Con: [6] are referenced entirely from animecons.com information...which no one has taken an issue with, including TheFarix who has done some work on that entry himself?
Please give me your feedback/recommendation. It is appreciated VicFlik ( talk) 08:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the tips, I'm trying to familiarize myself with Wikipedia a bit more which is why I'm bringing this up to you and others with experience.
VicFlik (
talk) 06:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
You made a great comment and gave helpful advice on how anyone should use Wikipedia. Thank you for your words. Thomprod ( talk) 15:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Just curious... I left a note on the RD Talk page to tell editors that they shouldn't respond to the troll. You deleted the warning and responded. Is there some other wording I could have used that would have done a better job at keeping you from responding to the troll? -- kainaw ™ 14:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
But the principle "No-consensus in any discussion should ALWAYS preserve the status quo. In an MFD, the status quo is the existence of the article" was not obeyed in the User:Apovolot MfD decision - so what could be done to correct and undo that deletion mistake ? Apovolot ( talk) 17:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
You just have said: "and administrators are supposed to take into account the content of comments, not simply the number of votes. It is not enough to simply count the votes and decide that "5 were for and 5 were against, so there is no consensus". The nature and content of the discussion should inform administrator's decision" - but Airvant didn't use this principle in Drv closing decision - in fact Airvant did'nt give any other (than "no consensus") rational for his decision. You also have said: "please start a deletion review discussion" - yes I want to do this - could you point me to process description, please. Apovolot ( talk) 18:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC) So do I have a formal avenue to appeal again the original Mfd - if so, how this could be done ? Apovolot ( talk) 18:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I have edited and sacled down mmy article, but have not heard back from anyone. What is the next step? What further step might I take? Have do I deal with the comment that the article is "orphaned" and that it needs "clean-up"? Again, thanks for your help! Lg4 ( talk) 02:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you kindly keep an eye over Hinduism and Buddhism article on the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Buddhism_and_Hinduism&action=history
The other editor Mitsube appears to be very aggressive and is undoing edits without properly discussing them. He appears to be biased as he continues to suppress well referenced edits which do not seem to agree with his thesis.
I have been trying to avoid an edit war and would appreciate some moderation. Thanks.-- Satyashodak ( talk) 21:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jayron, Thanks for getting in touch. To be honest, I'm a little confused. Obviously, I've been putting up a lot of links to one site, however all of the content that is being put up is both relevant and useful. As such, why would it be considered spam? Please advise.
Also, have my edits been removed? I look forward to hearing from you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psch1986 ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice Jayron. So how can I put up content from the site without sourcing it as in most cases it was genuinely enriching the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psch1986 ( talk • contribs) 22:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
83.108.25.133 – from Norway, editing Bryan Adams articles, making the same types of spelling errors, claiming to know how discographies should be formatted. Case closed, I'd say. — Zeagler ( talk) 20:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
He continues to edit: 80.212.228.54. — Zeagler ( talk) 22:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you with this but I suspect User:Be Black Hole Sun is editing again as User:QotSA. The editing style, subject matter and a knack for inaccuracy are all very similar. Piriczki ( talk) 16:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Two more: RECORDCharts and Wiki libs 2. — Zeagler ( talk) 18:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Jayron, thank you so much for pitching in on my search for this "Prof. G[e]rashchenko." Seems like my next avenue of inquiry leads to the Majdanek museum, with my hopes raised by mention (on the Majdanek page) of work done in 2005 by someone on their staff. Meanwhile, I'd like you to know your RD response had quite an impact you couldn't have known: I first read your reply in the middle of my 2-1/2 hour demonstration of Wikipedia to a group of nine educators in a state-sponsored program helping teenage dropouts in Galilee communities get their h.s. equivalency. (Incidentally, two former CIS immigrants among the teachers were quite emphatic that Viktor Gerashchenko is Jewish, no less!) Anyway, my effort—voluntary, like all I do in WP—is just getting off the ground...and if these teachers' enthusiasm is any indication of what's ahead, I believe this will snowball and fulfill its potential for doing a lot of good for all concerned. So keep up the good work; you do us proud! -- Cheers, Deborahjay ( talk) 18:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Can we remove all links and all mentions of The Library Corporation in Wikipedia?? There are too many SPAM links!! -- Raysonho ( talk) 15:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
This is from SirsiDynix - They keep deleting us and only leaving their links. I am adding The Library Corporation and ALL links to the companies. Raysonho seems to ONLY want SirsiDynix on there - Please do not let him run a monopoly on Wiki!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Look at this edits - he only leaves SirsiDynix - I am trying to include everyone!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Trillium608 (
talk •
contribs) 18:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
This is from SirsiDynix - They keep deleting us and only leaving their links. I am adding The Library Corporation and ALL links to the companies. Raysonho seems to ONLY want SirsiDynix on there - Please do not let him run a monopoly on Wiki!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks Trillium608 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trillium608 ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is SirsiDynix allowed to be on there and The Library Corporation is not? Raysoho works for SirsiDynix!! Please include all library software companies - which is what I'm trying to do. My links are not inappropriate - Raysoho is trying to only have his company on here - ALL should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trillium608 ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I sigh as well, but I suspect for different reasons. I just wanted to be sure that you noticed my response.— Kww( talk) 22:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I noticed your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Permanent is sharp-P-complete. I have got to start using "Clusterfuck" as a discussion result more often. Maybe we should get Mr.Z-man to add it to his Afd-closing script! Anyway, thanks for the laugh. (Oh, and not that it's necessary, but you made the right call.)-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 09:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Have a look at yes and no. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard ( talk) 16:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
You'd be interested in RFCU on Tajik results, see section's 14 and 15. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I sincerely appreciate it, especially that I need to patrol for vandalism. Thank you! Optakeover ( talk) 04:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Jay, have a great and safe Christmas. I hope Santa brings you everything you want :-) Scarian Call me Pat! 12:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; at some point, our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!
BorgQueen ( talk) 05:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Jayron32,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)
All the Best.
«l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»
(talk)
I don't mean to have a go at you by pointing this out, but it does bug me somewhat:
I hope my point's fairly clear. Talk Islander 15:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I have been reviewing the discussion, and see that we have generally moved into the realms of "how can we accommodate BC in future/how to we get BC to comply with restrictions" - which is all well and good, but I don't see a consensus that he should be unblocked! I see almost no opposes against my original indefinite block notice, and the unblock discussion promoted by you was closed as no consensus; therefore I think a consensus was established for the current block. Subsequently BC made his statement, and a good number of people argued that an unblock should be considered but not (in my view) sufficient to change the recently established consensus for the block.
To allow the discussion regarding the terms under which Betacommand may return to editing to develop to a consensus, I think there has to be a determination given that BC remains under indefinite block pending a change in consensus and that this needs to be stated clearly at WP:ANI. I think that it might be best if it were to be made by you, and/or Ryan Postlethwaite (who I will be copying this message) than by me as the blocking admin. This would allow the community to focus on how BC may be allowed to return (I favour the status quo; the restrictions worked because only by the block was BC forced to reconsider his actions) and BC to address the issues. As the block is indefinite, then when a sysop is prepared to unblock they can bring the matter to ANI and present their case, and enact the unblock upon reaching consensus.
If you, together with Ryan if considered necessary, feel that a "resolved, Betacommand indefinitely blocked" template should be placed upon the matter please do not feel it necessary to confirm to me - but I am otherwise open to discuss anything arising from this suggestion. Cheers.
LessHeard vanU (
talk) 20:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
For your outstandingly excellent admin work and your civility/politeness as well as your exemplary tone. Thank you for all that, Jayron. — Aitias // discussion 05:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC) |
Would you be kind enough to unblock Lightbot? I will not use the bot to unlink common units of measurement until the RFC has concluded. But there are many other good tasks that it can do. Lightmouse ( talk) 20:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937. Any inputs you can offer would be appreciated! Thanks. Foofighter20x ( talk) 04:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
You are a user who responded to RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. As someone interested in the discussion a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. — BQZip01 — talk 23:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Jayron32. There is a new contest for U.S. and Canada roads that you may be interested in. To sign up or for more information, please visit User:Rschen7754/USRDCRWPCup. The contest begins Saturday at 00:00 UTC. Regards, Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The
January 2009 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) 02:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
London Force is a real band! and as a founding member I resent that you deleted its Wikipedia page which while it may have been semi-incorrect information was a valuable addition to the Wikipedia community and I am not happy with the way you mis-treated our page. -respectfully M. West 71.184.93.49 ( talk) 19:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You don't know me. Nobody knows anybody here, and I'm nobody, to boot. I just felt the need to tell you what I'm thinking about your demeanor on the reference desks. You come off a little " bitey". I like sarcstic humor much better than the next guy, truth be told, but it's out of place there, sadly. Here's an example. I hope you'll take this message as a friendly nudge toward a higher standard of refdesk hospitality and professionalism. The refdesk interfaces Wikipedians with the public, and we want to create a good (if admittedly bland) impression. -- Milkbreath ( talk) 17:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
keeps adding untruth statments to Carly Corinthos and Jasper Jacks. I have revisted his edits and undid them. When i leave he just redoes them. -- M42380 ( talk) 02:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, on November 15th we had a conversation about a sockpuppet vandal, and you were very helpful. I have another candidate, possibly the same fellow with a new hat, here. Can you check him out or is there an official way of doing these things? Thanks, -- Haiduc ( talk) 21:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I promise you in not a BBHS. Please isn't it a way to prove that i'm not BBHS, because i know i'm not BBHS and i want you and any other user in wikipedia to know i'm not guilty of this charge. Please help me with this one, please. I'm not a BBHS. A solution is all i want, nothing else, so please let me prove that i'm not a BBHS. Retrospective III —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.54.130 ( talk) 18:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Your question was removed and I haven't seen it. What was the question? [I am in no way committing to give you an answer.] Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your time you have invested to study me on Wikipedia and thank you for the accuse ;)Matter of fact I don’t have another account currently and yes it’s true I am not any new to Wikipedia. I was a frequent editor for like a year ago and I think I just lost the password ;) — Wiikkiiwriter ( talk) 02:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Unless the editor Wikkiiwriter is an administrator, should he be answering requests as tho he is???? also. how can I check his contributions. Thank you...-- Buster7 ( talk) 02:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It didn't take long after you removed the page protection for the vandals to return. Niteshift36 ( talk) 01:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Given what you wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No, you might like to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No (2nd nomination). Uncle G ( talk) 21:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of James Scott Cooper at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jappalang ( talk) 00:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jayron32. First, thanks for taking the time to respond to my help desk question. Some time ago, another admin suggested I submit something to the Essay section. I've been working on it a little bit, and wanted to get some other opinions. The article in question is here. I wanted to get some other opinions before I even looked at how to submit it. While I am familiar with how to create an article, I'm not really sure what procedures are involved for the essay part which fall outside the normal Wikipedia namespace. (I hope I'm using the proper terminology here). Thanks again, I hope I've explained a little better this time. Ched ( talk) 06:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for any confusion caused by my editing of "Presidency of Barack Obama". You accused me of "vandalizing" the page. If it is your opinion that it is "vandalism" to remove the INCREDIBLY RACIST photo I found on that site of a gorilla instead of Prsident Obama, then I plead guilty of vandalism. I'd rather be a vandal than allow such gutter racism to stand on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.22.137 ( talk) 12:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
hi Jayron 32 some monthe back we dicussed this now i habe been able to make a stub. could you help me with some translation doubts? which are marled by / or (..)in the text or may be you know whom to ask. see as well the discussion of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_bankruptcy thanks -- Stefanbcn ( talk) 20:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
FYI, you recently dealt with an editor who has been banned and repeatedly blocked due to his relentless self-promotion. Harvardlaw ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), aka David J Silver. I've indef blocked the latest account and put a long term block on the IP. Will Beback talk 16:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
tahnks for your indication
i hope i have put it here correctly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Translation/National_bankruptcy
-- Stefanbcn ( talk) 02:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I was childish. You gave me a very good opportunity to look back on myself. I made up my mind to have a conversation with Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk · contribs). I don't spare my efforts to realize mutual understanding with Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk · contribs). -- Bukubku ( talk) 05:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I posted a response on the talk page with a link to the AIV report diff. I have also contacted the user who made the AIV report for clarification. Daniel Case ( talk) 17:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I reverted him again for adding the non-free picture into Matt Smith (British actor), and left what I feel is an acceptable explanation, but since you were involved with the unblock process I thought you might want to try and head off the problem before he becomes indistinguishable from a SPA. I just don't think he's going to listen to me, since he already removed several explanations by me with no comment (or one with a very flamy comment). Templarion ( talk) 03:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. If you are happy to unblock, then I have no objections (if you have not done so already). LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. This user, who you blocked, has asked me to be unblocked. He's currently editing anyway as User:whirl editing. Technically this new account should have been blocked as block evasion. I'm not exactly willing to help him if he's been sending abusive emails about me. The JPS talk to me 16:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look at the note I left at User talk:Matt72in. Although I support sustaining the block, the reason you gave -- that it was to evade a block for another account -- doesn't quite mesh with the timing. -- EEMIV ( talk) 03:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Jay, thanks for taking the time to comment on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. I am glad you see how important this guideline will be, since it will determine the inclusion or exclusion of television character and television episodes. I could tell your points were thought out, and they came across as very intelligent Ikip ( talk) 04:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Your name is being brought up here: MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-details#Add_notice_to_advertise_WP:FICT.27s_adoption_as_a_guideline Ikip ( talk) 06:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)