User talk:Jayron32/Archive11

Rage against the machine

Please semi-protect Rage Against The Machine (album). The release date for this article has been changed so many times, it has caused guests nothing but confusion. I propose that the release date is kept at November 1992 (no date of November, just the month) and then semi-protected so that only registered users can edit it. --Sky Attacker (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The article is hardly in a state of conflict, two different IPs have made a total of 5 edits in the past month. Protection is only used when the frequency of problematic edits reaches a rate that is impossible to keep up with. 5 edits spread over a month is hardly at that level. When it reaches 5 bad edits per hour, come back and talk to me.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

About deleting page

About deleting my page...

Please kindly tell me if you have read my last post in Karheim talk page, as i posted it just 10seconds before it has been deleted :( and tell me if your decision based on this or not..

it was about osram sylvania full kit, from its official site, which another user claimed it is illegal..is osram illegal? if i add these infos in osram wikipedia, will this removed?

Thanks in advance..we all thank you about the work you do for us in wikipedia

Psikxas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psikxas (talk • contribs) 01:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

the article was deleted for being about an entity which gave no indication as to why it would be important or notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, not for anything "illegal". If you wish to write an article about this subject, you must first establish that the subject itself merits an article by meeting the criteria as laid out at WP:N. If the subject is not notable enough for an article, it shouldn't have one regardless of what is written in that article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32 you are very kind to me, a new user, and really appreciate your help. ive read to companies site that managed to produce bulb size for xenon kits other than these of d2s, thats why i though it worths been listed here. Ive also tried to post company slogan, as maybe Mcdonalds slogan appear here, so as, if anyone want to know about the slogan, cant he search in wikipedia for it? Finally, as it was one of my first posts, though other users could complete it if it is mentioned as "advertisment" at first in order to become suitable for posting here.

Is there such and ability, to un-delete my post temporary (and leave as less infos as you think), and leave the community correct or even report the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psikxas (talk • contribs) 01:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, i must admit in public that Jayron32 is an admin here in order to HELP US! And he is doing it EXCELLENT. Thanks Jayron!

Psikxas (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You will find that all admins are here to help you. There is only a problem when people are not here to improve the encyclopedia themselves. But thank you for your kind words. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Protecting my edits and talk pages

I appreciate the blocks you have handed out in response to vandals personally attacking me. Top-notch work buddy, thanks very much! talk ProSpider 04:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Just pushing my mop around here. When I see a stain on the floor, I wipe it up... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi, I apologize. I asked in the Wikipedia IRC channel if normal users can post warnings regarding other users and they told me to go ahead. The user I "warned" has tried to make articles about himself in the past and I just thought I'd let him know that Wikipedia is not really meant for that, but rather for editing and contributing to Wikipedia. I didn't mean to cause anything disruptive. --Judgespearmkii (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

About making a new account. Well, I didn't do it intentionally. I don't remember the password to the account I made here a while back since it's been a while since I've used Wikipedia. I know my way from using other Wikis besides this one, and thats where I learned about the user I commented on, who has tried to make his own Wiki page on various other Wikis. I just thought I'd tell him that he shouldn't do that here on Wikipedia. I didn't mean any harm in creating a new account to do so, sorry. --Judgespearmkii (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, my only other account here is "machriderx." I haven't made any other accounts besides that. I have an older sibling who also has used this site in the past, but I am for the most part unaware of his activities here or what his username(s) may be. --Judgespearmkii (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Karheim

Greetings, Jayron32. Thank you for speedy deleting Karheim. Please take note that it looks very much as though we are dealing with a puppetmaster and a couple of socks; see SPI. Furthermore, it seems to me this user (under however many names s/he has assumed) may be using this subpage for promotional purposes by means of direct links to it on non-Wikipedia pages. Was userification necessarily warranted here? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C06:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Really, Scheinwerfermann, have you anything personal with me? 1.You deleted every evidence i provided in your talk page from Osram that pointed you didnt tell the whole truth that HID lamps are illegal from your talk page. Xm... 2.Why other admins here are helpful and kind?? 4.Am i the ONLY user one here who has a personal subpage? 5.To Jayron32: However, if admin Jayron32 thinks im violating any policy by having personal page till i finish it and thinks he made a HUGE mistake as an admin as Scheinwerfermann says, feel free to do anything needed . Admin Jayron32 gained already my repsect!

Psikxas (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Lets let SPI run its course on this one. I would not be surprised, given the evidence, if this turned out to be a truthful accusation, but there may also be a reasonable explanation for this. The SPI page has not yet been investigated, so lets let this one go until a reasonable conclusion is reached. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32, i dont know now what to do. Remove the page? Correct it? Please remove any infos you may think from the page, remove the whole page or leave it as it is till SPI finishes. I dont want to cause any trouble to you from a single article here because you restored it... so take any actions you may think! Psikxas (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Do nothing. Just let things run their course. The SPI investigation has nothing to do with the article. You are being accused of operating multiple accounts in an abusive way. I have no idea if the accusation is true or not, but this has nothing to do with the article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jayron32,

Ive read everything you provided to me and think im back better,i know better wikipedia's policy, really thank you. Now im working on my userpage. Please have a look at it and kindly tell me your opinion, if i am on a good way, if its notable/neutral etc.Really trying hard for it, believe me. I dont want to bother you all the time, so ill do nothing till you have time and i hear from you.

For one more time, i apologize for any troubles i caused to you and all the responses you had to give because of me... Psikxas (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Headsup: a discussion wrt the possibility of renaming

"Internet homicide" has commenced at Talk:Internet_homicide#Name. ↜Just me, here, now … 20:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

alright... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

10/26/1986

Hello, this is concerning my aritcle "10/26/1986" which you deleted a few days ago. I understand that the article is not exactly wikipedia material however it was written as an assignment for college and I need to show what I wrote to my professor. Can I at least have a copy of it please so I can submit it to my professor, I will not attempt to re submit it on wikipedia. Unfortunately I have been givin until today at 5:00pm to submit so a speedy response is extremely appreciated. thank you. Tyler Healy. Uncannyfish. Uncannyfish (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Dear Jayron32,

In various parts of the internet, people are often encouraged to "lurk more" before doing anything, to avoid the annoyance of having to deal with Newbies. I have lurked enough to be familiar with everything, so that I do not inconvenience others. If you have any other questions, please ask. Sincerely, Myownusername (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I am a fast learner. If you have any other concerns I would be happy to address them Myownusername (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of

I would report it to Sockpuppetry peopl but I figure might as well get an opinion first User:Qweqwewert user:59.105.23.90 user:Liu Tao all make the same edits, and therefor looksl ike a sockpuppet case, buit, 1: i don't remember where to report it. It very obviously is the same person, look at History of Kuomintang and Liu Tao's talkpage.--Jakezing (Your King (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Try WP:SPI. Checkusers could confirm this better than I could. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Self-check

Hi Jayron,

I have reverted 3 times on M24 Sniper Weapon System and won't touch it again for a while but there is a Russian bloggist insistent on using his site as a reference. I'm trying to get him to the talk page instead of pushing it in again. I don't want to go too far so this is out of my hands for now. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP in question for edit warring. If I were you, I would avoid editing the article in question for some time to avoid the appearence of edit warring yourself. Instead, perhaps report the problem to WP:RSN to get outside comments on his site. If there is a consensus not to use his reference, it would go a long way towards backing your position. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Will avoid editing there and see what others have to say. Thank you for the help and the advice..always welcome.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Half-bricks and dead cats

From time to time, I'm away for a couple of days at a time, after which I try to catch up with my favorite RefDesks on my return. All through that article, I'm thinking to myself ... where's the dead cat ... somebody has to swing a dead cat ... man, where are these people from, anyway (that they don't swing a dead cat).

So, thanks for adding the reference to one of my favorite phrases! (I get some really funny looks when I try to use than in Europe, though.) --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting people who hadn't heard of swinging dead cats... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Jayron, you know what you should do,

NOMINATE ME FOR ADMIN, COME ON MAN DO IT. This is partially because i wanna try to do it, and i want ot see if it snowballs against me partially, at which point I'll call a lot of people biased and unforgiving.--Jakezing (Your King (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

clarie the movie _______________________________________ aparently you don't watch the hallmark channel, cause clarie was on the hallmark channel,the reason it was so short is because i forgot what the movie was all about, but i remembered bits and pieces of the movie, i am going to write it again and try to remember the rest of the movie, thanks for the help.Kaybugg1 (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You here jay?--Jakezing (Your King (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive ID editor warring again

Hi, I am having a dispute with an IP editor in the AKM article whi is edit warring, his talk page reveals that he was previously blocked for doing the same, by yourself. I've warned him and the editor continues to disrupt the page, refusing to discuss. Oh, it is User talk:69.141.140.192 Koalorka (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A couple questions for you...

What are the benefits of a tree structure?

The article doesn't say.

I'm interested, because I need to explain the benefits in the guideline on outlines I'm writing. (Outlines are a type of tree structure).

I've also asked the question at various reference desks, and these threads may help to jump start your brain on this question.  :)

• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#What are the benefits of a tree structure?
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics#What are the benefits to humans of using a tree structure?
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#In the humanities, what are the applications and benefits of a tree structure?
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#What are the benefits of using tree structures in linguistic communications?
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#With respect to the fields covered by this refdesk, what are the applications and benefits of a tree structure?

What are the benefits of outlines, over and above regular articles?

What benefits have you noticed?

How are Wikipedia's outlines useful to you?

I look forward to your answers on my talk page.

The Transhumanist    04:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Meh. Don't really care. I read and ignored these threads at the ref desks. Not sure I am much more interested here. Sorry! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

New Kadampa tradition

Hi Jayron You refuse my request for unblock on the above-someone else reverted it. Please, if you have time, read the rant on that talk page at the bottom as it explains what is going on-I really need help No hard feelingsYonteng (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see dispute resolution and request mediation or something like that. I am not here to play referee between the two sides in this war... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

WPOOK Update - 05/17/2009 - Blockbusting!

This project needs another shot in the arm.

So here it goes...

Countries WikiProject Collaboration - Contests!

I've contacted all 59 members of the Countries WikiProject to help in designing and conducting contests for the further development of the country outlines.

You are invited too.

Houston, we have a problem

The guidelines and outline article still aren't complete.

Which means you will be needed to help explain to the newcomers mentioned above what outlines are and how to develop them.

Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Hosting country coverage contests.

The Transhumanist    22:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Good faith…?

Greetings, Jayron32. In reference to Psikxas (talk · contribs) (sockpuppet smackdown [[1]], MfD here), please take note that his company's logo ( File:Karheim.jpg) was deleted today (copyvio: corporate logo, not text only), and Psikxas immediately re-uploaded the very same image with a new title and replaced it on his user-page-cum-billboard. I am running out of ability to assume this user is acting in good faith, what do you think? Sock puppets, numerous violations of behavioural protocol, putting his commercial pseudo-article on his front userpage, and now these copyvio logo shenanigans just don't add up to anything but a persistent attempt to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Adopt me please!

Hey Jayron32!

I am new to wikipedia. I've made random edits anonymously, and I have successfully added links and references to a couple articles. I want to learn more about making wikipedia a better place.

I was hoping you could be my mentor, and help me out as I stumble through figuring wikipedia out.

Do you have any suggestions on where I should start honing my skills?

Thank you

StNicksRocks (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron32! I'm starting off with Copy-Editing. This is the article I'm currently working on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Italy How am I doing so far?

I also want to learn more about patrolling for Vandalism.

Hope you're well,

StNicksRocks (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Jayron32. Thanks for being a patient mentor. So I'm starting to realize there is JUST SO MUCH OUT THERE. I've dabbled with patrolling, trying to fix vandalism, editing random articles. I'm having trouble zeroing in on a place to focus on. What is your advice?

Thanks, StNicksRocks (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphan needs good home.

I saw that you are currently adopting. I hope that is still correct. I am completely lost and feel inundated with info! I am trying to write my first article. I have been and am in the process of reading the instructions. Good GOD there are a lot of instructions! I want to do this, and really want it to be done well! But no matter how hard I try to play around in the sandbox, try understanding the set up of various, well written wiki's to get a clue on how to simply write one, aside from all the rules, tips, links and suggestions, I am overwhelmed and lost. Can you help?

My name is Nicole and user name is NHearn. This is my first wiki experience and I have been just trying to figure out where to even start for 3 weeks. I am not usually a slow learner, so I think maybe I need help... Let me know. Thank you! NHearn (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey there! It's your adoptee :) with questions once again.

Few questions and one fav to ask if you have time to help. I have worked hard to remove peacock language from my wiki in my sandbox: User:NHearn/Sandbox, and try to avoid making it sound like an advertisement.I really am just trying to give kind of a company bio breakdown.I understand the issues and why it is so important to write with an impartial unbiased tone. Plus, I don't want to run into WP delete issues somewhere along the road, especially since I've been working on this for a while now. Can you take a look at my wiki and give me any content and formatting suggestions. I still have a few things to do before I will be ready to post the final content to its own page:

1. Categorize it: I've read...and read....and read........
a. How do I link it to a category? 
b. How do I choose a category? 
c. Do I choose all applicable categories (more than one), or just one?
2. I have been given auth. by owner of all copyrighted content to use and let wiki use, with
   full GFDL, but...
a. Who do I direct that authorization to? 
b. Does it need to be emailed? 
c. What does the release need to contain, and exactly who is supposed to send it. (Yes, I've
   read, I'm just a bit lost.....sorry.)
d. And do I need to add one of the Copyright images to the page, if so, where?
3. a. How exactly do I add an image to the wiki? I have read all over W.Commons, and signed 
up, only to find out I can't use it for W.Pedia.... 
b. If I can, how?
4. When you have time, could you take a look and help me with this?

So..... I feel like a major pain ... but cannot thank you enough for your help. I promise, I have looked for these answers. But there are so many answers and options, that I just become confused even more at times. Thank you again. Have a lovely weekend! NHearn (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Mike Holovak.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mike Holovak.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Holovak2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Holovak2.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

reply to orphan needs good home

1. How do I reply to your comments/response other than starting an entirely new topic? 2. THANK YOU for your help! It IS greatly appreciated! 3. I thought I was working in the "sandbox" these last few weeks and have been actually writing ACTUAL wikis OOPS! I'm not sure where this sandbox is, but am beginning to feel dummer by the second. 4. The article is on the history of a company in Kansas. I am usually good at writing unbiased, even when familiar w/topic, and can be objective. I have no idea how to edit without screwing it up completely. Which I would not want to be done to my hard work. Since I can't find the instructions or key to all the html or whatever it is that is used to format (aside from the tool bar at the top), I'm not sure what to do. Do I need to learn to write HTML code first?

Thanks and sorry for the extent of issues. Your help is greatly appreciated! NHearn (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Days of Our Lives Cast Member Page

Hello again, I need some help at the List of Days of our Lives cast members page. An IP, starting with 74.216... keeps editing mercessily there, adding unsourced information, and ignoring the hidden warnings. You protected the page from IP editing a few weeks ago, and it doesn't look like there is enough to do it again, but I do need some help in dealing with this individual. The IP changes every time (of course), and he/she removes the hidden tags. Any help you could give would be most appreciated. Rm994 (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Help

IP's are relentlessly disrupting List of Days of our Lives cast members page. I need your help again. Thank you so much! Rm994 (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

1995 Brazilian Grand Prix

Hi Jayron32. I noticed you're name at WP:PRV. I was wondering whether you could peer review the 1995 Brazilian Grand Prix article for me, leaving you're comments here. If you could make any comments at the PR, that'd be great. Kind regards, D.M.N. (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Has the shit hit the fan? - WPOOK update, 05/25/2009

Maybe...

We've started the next phase

I was experiencing mental block on the article draft for "outline" and on the outline guideline draft. And this was holding the whole project back. Without these (which are intended to explain the type of lists known as outlines in detail), the danger is higher that a controversy could go the wrong way.

I requested help on them, but there was none forthcoming.

So I went ahead and started us on the next phase of operations without those 2 pages...

Our AWB'ers and I have placed about 1600 notices all over Wikipedia. And the plan is to place several thousand more.

This generated only one complaint, but it was a very vocal one, and attracted a few other detractors who seemed unfamiliar with the concept of hierarchical outlines and their benefits. However, just as many or more editors came to the defense of the OOK, and there was no consensus formed. But, dab is still trying to rally opposition to outlines at the Village Pump. See below...

Administrator noticeboard incident and Village Pump policy discussion

It appears that the banner placed on the talk page of the Outline of Switzerland caught the attention of an editor named Dbachmann who posted a rather forceful message on my talk page, another on WT:WPOOK, another at WP:VPP, and still another at WP:AN!

He went well out of his way to use negative hype to cause a stir.

It appears that Mr. Bachmann doesn't understand the nature of hierarchical outlines and their applications. And though he implied that he has never seen an OOK outline before, he was involved with a discussion on these when they were called "lists of basic topics".

His primary argument is that outlines are content forks of articles, and violate WP:CFORK.

But "topic lists", of which outlines are a type, have been around for almost as long as Wikipedia, and fall under the WP:LISTS and WP:STAND guidelines. They aren't intended as forks, as they are lists, bringing the benefits of lists to the corresponding subjects, such as grouping and navigation.

Someone suggested an MfD, but lists are articles, and are within the jurisdiction of AfD. Only the portal page, which merely lists the outline articles, falls within the scope of the MfD department.

The administrator's noticeboard was considered the wrong venue for the discussion, and the discussion was closed.

But Dab's discussion at the Village Pump is still active. Hopefully level heads will prevail there too.

Now what?

Am I disheartened or deterred? Hell no. I say "full steam ahead!"

But we really need to finish the article draft and the guideline. Otherwise there will continue to be confusion.

Over the next week or two, we'll be posting another 1600 or so notices. It's a good thing we didn't send out 10,000 of them all at once.  :)

The Transhumanist    23:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: Another related thread has popped up at WP:VPR#OoK's expediency. --TT   04:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

CBS Mandate deletion

Uhh...thanks, I guess. I've never even heard of the Barnstar of Integrity before, let alone gotten one. No, I just have gotten better at seeing what are important and encyclopedic on here. The CBS Mandate isn't one of those items. Hey, we all have to start somewhere. Jgera5 (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

article Karheim restore

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

My talk page is not the place to carry on your disputes. Mediation is thataway...

---

Hi Jayron32.

• After reviewing changes i made to User:Psikxas/Karheim to see now is notable,
• this convertation here Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Psikxas/Karheim to see that admin Scheinwerfermann acted in bad faith and thats why he started reporting article in any mean,many times, and upon its creation,
• after reviewing the result as No consensus of the above discussion about if article -as it is now after many editing- violates any policy according to reporting admin "NOTHOST and CORP and apparently COI" ,

please kindly tell me if its possible to restore article with latest changes from userspace to mainspace of wikipedia. THANKS for any help provided to me from EARLY beggining, and promise to you ill do my best to make wikipedia better! Psikxas (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Psikxas, please be mindful and thoughtful before throwing around accusations of bad faith. You and I do not agree on what you're doing or how you're doing it, but that does not mean I am acting in bad faith. Neither does a nonconsensus conclusion to an XfD. Several editors and administrators have tried to coach you on such core Wikipedia values as notability, verifiability, reliable sources, and others. You seem not to be especially interested in these, which is a pity for you (because it means your contributions don't last long and in this case aren't in mainspace) and for the project (because your contributions create cleanup work for administrators and other editors, rather than improving the encyclopædia). We'd really like for you to contribute coöperatively…won't you please put in the brief time it takes to understand how Wikipedia's main principles and protocols work, rather than operating according to your own guesses and assumptions of how they work? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

aiv

Thanks. Some personal attacks go too far. APK lives in a very, very Mad World 01:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No prob. I've got your back... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I know. It hurts so good. APK lives in a very, very Mad World 01:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Great, if you ever need me to "grease the wheels" again, let me know. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Psikxas

Hi Jayron32. You always guide me what to do next..so after this experience here from karheim and after another bad one similar to this,

after reviewing shoei, Schuberth, Suomy ... tell me :

1. what makes the above article notable? Why references to official websites ONLY make these articles here "reliable", and whatever i create dont? Are all these articles based to official articles "reliable" and mine isnt?

2. arent these pages based ONLY on companies' official website for refference ? why, even if they are not as you ask "independent of the company itself", can be on mainspace, but mine cant?

I can put hundrend of articles here, which are based to companies site ONLY...i searched for such articles on wikipedia, and based on these, i tried to create mine. I thought that articles in mainspace follow some rules in order to stay there, but its not enough i suppose...

Cause i made the mistake and argued with an admin,which i even do not know and have nothing personal..i even said thinks for him i dont mean always and im sorry...after all this, i feel "undesirable" here :(((....for real.. Psikxas (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As you probably can see, ive started another article about lazer helmets...And has been deleted too...Even if i could provide sources from newspapers, from UK government etc based on the experience i gained from you and from karheim...

As you can see, nobody has written about shoei, Schuberth, Suomy,showing that outside of itself and Wikipedia, people have written about it extensively, showing that both above articles and companies are NOT notable, but these articles are here!!! Isnt?

I could add refferences that my lazer_helmet article is about a notable company, many more reference than other helmet manufacturers i mentioned, but article deleted! Isnt it unfair or not?

Or dont you think sharp.gov.uk , goverment UK organization is notable?

Or even Motorcycle_News? As and admin, you can better than me find out how many articles point to this newspaper as a refference! just see this lazer helmets - MCN about lazer helmets

Adding this to what happened to my first article, what i can now understand is that you are 100% right about karheim, i think it is unfair that my other article about lazer deleted , and last that many many many many articles in wikipedia are not notable, are not based on external sources, but they are here cause likely or unlikely another admin didnt acted. I accept that..i have not luck ..xexe...

But you do perfect your job, so, hope future articles will fall under your attention and will not appear such injustice cause other admins didnt do they job. Exactly, to be honest, i was reviewng articles i mentioned to you,thought that if they were here, similar articles should also. Didnt thought that these other articles shouldn be there, but nobody mentioned them. My mistake was that based on these i argued with other admin..anyway... Thanks for any advice Jayron32 :) Psikxas (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oh..and not to forget..cause admin Scheinwerfermann had concerns if article could be used for promotional reasons...and after all these i dont know if im willing to continue my job, and maybe argue with someone else in the future, i m not here for such a reason. So, is there i way to mark with these "pink" notices above my articles in my userspace, till or if i decide to improve them? so as nobody thinks im abusing even userspace. Just dont know how to mark it. Thanks... Psikxas (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Neptune's user talk

[2] Just leave him be. There's no problem with him blanking, or insulting us while no one is listening, for that matter.--chaser (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bill Szymczyk

Hello! Your submission of Bill Szymczyk 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! Smallman12q (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Formal Mediation for Sports Logos

As a contributor to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos, you have been included in a request for formal mediation regarding the subject at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. With your input and agreement to work through mediation, it is hoped we can achieve a lasting solution. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Marble Hill Ministerial Correspondence

May 27 you were able to comment on Is a Freedom of Information request OR? What was not specifically asked was this

File:NATIVETITLEMHILL.JPG

DEC Ministerial correspondence is outgoing and thus to the Friends of Marble Hill President Incorporated under the Friends of Parks Inc thus answerable to we the people via OCBA Office of Consumer and Business Affairs, not an "Email", not "interdepartmental" correspondence. Could specific comment be made on this reference as a reliable source?Mifren (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the updated information. Given I've actually altered the original jpg image from the former Friends of Marble Hill President by removing identifying private contact information that had been released as a hardcopy to South Australian Parliamentarian Hon Michelle Lensink MLC through Freedom Of Information does that altered jpg image become my copyright?Mifren (talk) 02:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Bill Szymczyk

On June 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bill Szymczyk, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Guessing and changing birthdate guy (s)

Somebody change Grace Mugabe's birthyear from 1964 to 1965, and didn't cite. another guy changed Paul Kagame's birthdate from October 23 to 27 unsource statement. I doubt it is the same guy (happene on 11/08/2008). The guy who mess Grace Mugabe up happen on 2/19/2009 when source said 1965 this guy changed to 1964. 206.255.186.75 have 7 warnings on his talkpage but only white flag warning, not destroying encyclopedia, just adding lies on. That is frustrationg for me to see who did it, I ask this person to stop changing humans birthdates unless you have a very valid source.--69.229.240.187 (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Is this the same guy who add lies to those two articles. If he is not the same guy, then I calm down. The thing is I don't want to sit down on computer and see who mess it up, and see if the person add is lies. It is just a waste of time to investigate these things.--69.229.240.187 (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I have no idea. If you are concerned, you could try bringing the issue up at WP:ANI and see if other admins can comment. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi, in the past, a contributor was asked an explanation why he added a {{primarysources}} tags to various articles. After a summary answer, he dodged any question to respond in depth about this. Only after a thread on ANI, he participated shortly in a discussion (consolidated here), but removed subsequent queries from his talk page [3]. Given the closing comment on the discussion and the subsequent addition of the same tag to further articles [4], what do you suggest? -- User:Docu

Just stopping in to say Docu (talk · contribs) is lying now, as he did then, about my non-responsiveness over that (non)issue. I provided diffs demonstrating the lie in the old AN/I thread. Docu asked a question, Docu got an answer, multiple times. Sorry to get between you two, but I won't stand for more deception about me from this user.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You two obviously do not like eachother. Please do not continue your personal battles on my talk page. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The core issue is not the use of primary sources in all cases, it looks here that it is the use of primary sources in articles where such sources are being used to verify that the subject is notable. It is very difficult to use primary sources to verfify notability, as defined at WP:N, since usually primary sources, by definition, lack outside, independent commentary on the subject. For example, a copy of a the text of a treaty between two nations may be an important source to link to in an article about relations between those two countries, however the text of the treaty itself cannot be used to prove the relationship meets the definition of notability. Why? Because it contains no indication that any independent reliable source has written about the treaty, and thus the criteria clearly spelled out at WP:N have not been met. It would be akin to using a bands MySpace page to prove the band notable; the source is useful in certain instance, but not for the purpose that it is trying to be used. If valid secondary sources (that is, outside commentary on the relationship) were added to the article then the objections to this sort of use of primary sources whould evaporate. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If you look closely at {{primary sources}}, this doesn't bring up the question of notability. The question is about reliability. It adds the article to Category:Articles lacking reliable references without any reason. -- User:Docu

That is fine and well, and is a completely different issue. This issue seems clearly part of a larger conflict over the general suitibility of "x-y relations" articles at Wikipedia, especially in cases where the notability of individual "x-y relations" articles is called into question. The "primary sources" tag and its intricacies seems like a minor point given the larger context of this conflict. If this were not part of a larger issue, I may agree with you, but at this point, it seems like the change of locus of this conflict from the "x-y relations" issue to this relatively minor side issue seems like an intentional misdirection. I would really suggest that before we start dickering about the use of that tag we instead solve the main conflict. Come up with a consensus manner on dealing with the "x-y relations" article rather than edit warring over some esoteric tag, expecially since such edit war is merely a proxy for the main conflict. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There are various problems to be resolved and I think this solves a point that was brought up repeatedly. There isn't really any edit waring involved (the tag is still on Nauru – United States relations), but we can just observe that Bali ultimate persists in this and in one way or the other this should be addressed. -- USer:Docu

I don't want to belittle either of your concerns in this conflict, so we must take it that he has good-faith reasons to believe that the sourcing of the article needs work, and that the article benefits from some notice asking editors to improve the referencing. That is the only conclusion I can reach about using a tag like that. If that is the wrong specific tag, then perhaps you could propose a different cleanup tag which would better inform editors how to improve the article? Asking that someone not leave any notification that the article has grave shortcomings does not seem like the best solution to this small problem. However, as I said above, this little issue reads merely like an extension of the larger conflict. This is not about the "primary sources" tag. This is about the dispute over the suitibility of some of the "x-y relations" articles, and if a compromise solution was worked out which could establish exactly how one can objectively decide which "x-y relations" articles belong at Wikipedia and which do not, then this stupid tag issue would disappear entirely. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Jayron, sorry to be here again but since he is asking your help for a "problem" he apparently has with me, here's my thinking in a nutshell (so you don't have to speculate about my intent). The full text of the tag in question says: "This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications. Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources" (emphasis mine). I add this tag to articles that rest entirely on primary sources affiliated with the subject, which is its intended purpose. If he has a problem with the tag, maybe he should MFD it or otherwise seek a change to our sourcing policies. As to the meta dispute -- on an article by article basis, sourcing needs to be found and specific relationship evaluated. Some of these relations are amply supported as notable via multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources (China-US relations Australia-East Timor relations etc) and others are not. Some of the articles so-tagged may be salvageable, some are not salvageable. The tag itself is a useful and appropriate tool for readers and editors (and a warning that the article itself hinges on the PR of those involved in the relationship itself).Bali ultimate (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This issue can't be resolved if the various contributors don't participate responsibly. As the tagging issue was raised in the past, Bali ultimate was already reminded by three administrators about this, he is likely to apply the same tactics to other articles. It's just as constructive as his intervention on this talk page [5]

There is always the stub tag to add to indicate that the article needs expansion (It is already there though). In the sample case, it was noted that "primary sources are used reasonably & responsibly. Complaining about their use is tendentious editing, & could lead to sanctions for disrupting Wikipedia". As this is applies to the new article as well, this should be stopped. -- User:Docu

I am not reading Bali ultimate's objection as saying that the primary sources do not belong in the article. I am reading his objection saying that the article needs additional independent sourcing. The primary sources can be used reasonably and responsibly, and still be inadequate for the referencing standards at Wikipedia. Your assertion that the primary sources are relevent to the articles is not inherently in conflict with his assertion that the primary sources are insufficient for the articles. The tag does not ask that the sources are removed, it asks for additional independent references. I cannot find fault with anyone who requests independent sourcing for an article, and neither can I find fault with including the primary sources where appropriate. You two need to realize that these ideas are not what is in conflict here. It is you two that are taking a personal conflict and creating a problem where one does not exist. I cannot find innocence on either party here. You two must work out this personal conflict, or it will continue to manifest itself in unproductive ways as it is doing right here. Neither one of you comes off as particularly "right" here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The tag doesn't specify this. Besides, the discussion yielded that the sources - primary or not - had been used reasonably in the article and are reliable. -- User:Docu

Actually, the text of the tag specifies that exactly. It is quite clear in that it states that the sources are not sufficient, and requests editors to add more sources. I don't understand how the tag could be any MORE clear on the issue. If you have an alternate cleanup tag that asks editors to add additional, independent sources to an article which would be more appropriate that the "primarysources" tag, perhaps you could recommend it? And, since you didn't actually read what I wrote above, let me state it more clearly. Yes, I agree that the sources are used reasonably and are reliable. However, and let me state this clearly as well. Being reasonable and reliable does not mean that they are sufficient. You are both right 100% on your assertions. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Gettysburg Cyclorama Posts

Hi Jayron32. I'm assuming you were involved in writing parts of the topic "Gettysburg Cyclorama" a couple years ago? If so, please reply to me as I have found a trove of new data on the unknown Brooklyn Cyclorama. I can provide links that can be used to add new material to that topic. Thanks! Syosset1966 (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a novice at best on Wiki so, I will post the key links on the topic's talk page and let the other authors do their thing with it. I am researching a conventional book on the neighborhood in Brooklyn where this version of the cyclorama was in 1886 and came across the links. Thanks for the guidance! Syosset1966 (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I just added the links there. Good luck!

Syosset1966 (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

Why are you so cool? You always have the best answers and can do everything. I hadn't talked to you for a while, but I just wanted to let you know I strive to be like you everyday. Cheers to beers, hmwithτ 20:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Never been better. Life is good... except spring finals being next week, but it will be summer soon enough. How about yourself? hmwithτ 14:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, the dramaz. There's always time for that. hmwithτ 17:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and congrats on the new little you! Just what the world needs... hmwithτ 17:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for dealing with the person vandalizing my talk page, I had no idea the wikipedia community would come to my aid so quickly. Mekeretrig (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

no problem... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Archiving talk pages

This really isn't a refusal to answer a question. It's archiving a talk page to its history. There are several ways that people choose to archive their user talk pages, and this is one of them. It's not even vanishingly uncommon, and certainly not peculiar to just Docu. Yes, it has its disadvantages (which is why I chose to archive my user talk page in a different way), but it has long been regarded as a valid use of MediaWiki.

Observe that the only substantial difference between Docu making that edit, and your making this edit to your own talk page is that you made a second edit, copying and pasting the content to another page, whereas Docu does not. You both marked the edit as archiving, in the edit summary. You even had some sections in your talk page when you archived it where you hadn't responded, notice. I expect that you thought that they didn't needed responding to, or thought it better not to respond to them, or had already responded to them, or had responded to them elsewhere; just as Docu probably did. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You totally misunderstood my point. I responded on your talk page. For the record, I could give a shit how he chooses to archive his messages. It's the substance of the discussion which is very disturbing for an admin. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC on admin?

Are you aware this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Docu.27s_signature_violates_WP:SIGNATURE is now closed. is anyone else happening, like RfC? LibStar (talk) 09:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

great stuff

hey, great random stuff you have on your user page. keep it updated! 93.86.201.173 (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

peer review

Hi there, I have nominated Scream/Childhood for peer review. I would like to send it to FAC over the summer. Any assistance is appreciated. — R² 00:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your advice. I have decided not to join as I'm a little bit nervous about the whole thing. I know my dad wanted me to but I will maybe join when I am more confident. Thank you. Wee Tuck (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

David Boothroyd

Given this article in a British Sunday newspaper, do you think the David Boothroyd deletion review should be reopened, or restarted, or...? Thanks GTD 12:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I came here with the same concern. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Would one of you agree to a userfied version so we can see how this article turns out? I think the community had some concerns over WP:BLP1E and not just the lack of notability; and while this is certainly a reliable source, I am concerned over the fact that there is, as yet, no evidence that there exists a depth of coverage that would alleviate any WP:BLP1E concerns here. Perhaps we could try userfying the article and see if a more agreeable version can be worked out? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to userfy to me. I guess I'll take the heat for it. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Article has been userfied to User:JoshuaZ/David Boothroyd. You have 1 week to fix it to alleviate the community concerns that have been expressed at multiple AFDs and the DRV discussion in question. After 1 week, I will start an MFD discussion to see if the community has changed its mind on this article based on your fixes. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That seems completely reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Obama Beach

Hi! I'm puzzled...

It seems that you deleted the redirect I created on the grounds that it was a copyright infringement. How can it be? It's only a redirect... I created the link after hearing and reading various news reports how Gordon Brown was a laughing stock around the word for having said "Obama Beach" instead of "Omaha Beach" at the D-Day commemoration. It was a redirect to Gordon Brown. I intended to forestall any attempt at deletion by placing the relevant citation on the article, knowing that it was invisible and would not interfere with the redirect. Now it seems that the citation caused its deletion. Boohoohoo! Ohconfucius (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Email

You've got mail. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request

Re User talk:85.75.155.167: This is a bit of a problem: this address is being caught in a range block ([6]) which I've had to keep in force for more or less the last half year, due to an extremely persistent harassment vandal. So, this might well be a legitimate user suffering collateral damage, or the vandal himself trying to take advantage of the fact I'll be without admin bits for the next few months. I'd prefer if we could discuss the rest off-wiki, if you don't mind? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't already done so, send me an email. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Scary stats formula

Hi, on the ref desk you and I both mentioned a formula where its possible to show that the chances of flipping coin outcomes can give unexpected results, I was wondering could you name the formula or something. Although I don't understand it, got into a pub argument over it with some engineers. Many thanks MedicRoo (talk) 09:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

JoshuaZ mail

Was it in regards to this? rootology (C)(T) 13:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I informed him that I had no intention of doing much of anything based on ArbCom's statements on the matter. As far as I can tell, this is still a content issue, and it should be up to the community to decide how to proceed. This will go before MFD in a few days to see what the community feelings are towards the article. Besides my initial userfication deal (where he had 1 week before I started the new MFD) I gave him the option of requesting a U1 deletion (should he feel the article would never pass the MFD deletion) or starting the MFD early at his request. Lets all just chill for a few days and see how this goes. This is in no way urgent... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Even with BLP stuff, as long as it's not flagrant, I don't mind short term userside copies to see if it's worth keeping, especially if they're NOINDEX like this one. I'm sure Boothroyd is notable beyond WP, but have no real desire to work on the article. I'm amazed that no one has sourced it up yet or put a serious effort into it. Scary... maybe we're growing up. rootology (C)(T) 23:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Karheim : New Ref Added

Hi Jayron32. I read carefully everything you tell , so i found references to proove that my second article was notable and other admin restored it. After so many time, i understand i think my mistake to our article here, and i added refference from a university, Aristotle_University www.auth.gr | www.ee.auth.gr and experiments it did with Karheim lambs in PDF. Please can you tell me if now outside of itself and Wikipedia, people have written about Karheim or not? What you think of a university and a thesis posted globally about this? Please find article here [7] and in page 2 of abstract. Thanks a lot! Psikxas (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Okay Jayron, i understand. To be 100% honest to you, i dont understand why you dont release the article to the public, maybe as a stub, to let others work on this too .. :(( . At least, can you give me an example of a company here on wikipedia that meets all what you ask? Because however hard i try, i find company articles based on their company site only, no external links at all, no external sources for simultaneously a)its history, b)its business practices, c) its product lines and this is that confuse me all the time. Have you any example? Or, maybe if i leave in the article ONLY these details that have reference to external sources and not company site, would be enough?Thanks again! Psikxas (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Really really helpfull! I cant promise i can find what asked for this here, but can promise i made such a big research all these days here, i can find a list of companies not according wikipedia polciy..Either way, ill help improve wikipedia..xexe... thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psikxas (talk • contribs) 02:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hooah!

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		It's nice to find a admin that has the same sense of humor I do, and the same kind of views of what Wikipedia should be as well. Oh FYI one of your user boxen is out of date. Whispering 08:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Boothroyd, Chapter 47

In regards to this, it's June 13 my time. I decided we've waited enough and began Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ChildofMidnight/David Boothroyd. rootology (C)(T) 13:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest and responses J-ron. I was a little hurt by your comment that you're not a fan of mine (or something like that, I can't recall your exact wording) but time heals all wounds. The throwing out of appropriate procedure, courtesy, and common sense by those on a concerted campaign to delete the article is disturbing. It's especially ironic that they accuse everyone else of bad faith as they trample our policies and guidelines. Oh well. Back to work. :) Have a nice weekend. Thanks again for your courtesy and reasonable approach. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well, personality concerns be what they may, I have not treated anyone unfairly here, in fact I have gone out of my way to ensure that all sides in this dispute are treated fairly here, and that everyone should at least feel that everything has been above board, and that everyone has had a fair chance to make their case to the community. I can see the merits in both arguments, and still take no position as to whether or not the article should be kept or not, only that those wishing to keep the article are given a fair opportunity to work up the best possible version, and that those wishing to see it deleted are shown that best version to make an honest assessment. I still stand by my position that the big problem here is that this has ceased to be about the content of the article, and the article debate has become a proxy for the personal conflict that exists between the two "camps" here. I urge both sides to step back from the ad hominem bullshit that is rampant around this debate, and to consider the article based on policy and guidelines and nothing else. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I was trying to make that clear in previous comment that I appreciated your straightforward, courteous and respectful approach to all concerned. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

J, I'm good with the article now. As indicated previously, my preference would be to move it to article space and have it go through an AfD to determine notability. I don't think it's substantially similar to the previous version, so I don't think a DRV is the appropriate route. I think I understand why some might prefer that process. If there are legitimate reasons for doing it that way I'm willing to take those viewpoints into consideration. I prefer AfD because I think that's the normal process in a case like this.

If there is a BLP violation, that particular content can be removed (although I can't really see how anyone can make a good case for one being in the article as it stands). So if someone thinks there is one maybe that issue should go to BLPN now before article creation?

As far as the AfD (or DRV) goes, I'm happy to nom it myself or to work on a neutral nom statement with other concerned editors. I think putting an end to the flame wars would be a good thing and a hyper-partisan nom statement would be inappropriate. But maybe that's out of my control. And I guess I can't stop anyone from editing the article, but presumably it will be watched closely and disruptive edits or edit warring quashed. I don't think any of the citations should be removed as they help establish notability, but I understand some editors disputed the reliability of some of them, so I guess we'll see what happens there too...

I'm looking forward to getting the article out of my userspace and reaching a community consensus on the article's future, but I'm flexible on the timing so let me know if you have any thoughts or concerns in that regard. Cheers. Thanks again for your help. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, it's already started here (by someone else). No use stopping this now. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ChildofMidnight/David Boothroyd. Toodles. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. My bad. I had noticed that discussion, but it seemed to be headed towards a keep based on there being no good reason a biography shouldn't be worked on in userspace. But I suppose that process has to run its course and be resolved first, before any moves or AfDs/DRVs are engaged. One step at a time. Vaya con Dios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Jayron32. You have new messages at Agathoclea's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Plagiarism

Hi, Jayron32. It appears Psikxas (talk · contribs) has resorted to plagiarism in his strenuous, ongoing effort to promote a non-notable company. Please see here. Now what? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Take it up at WP:ANI. Good catch on the plagarism, but you really should take care in your tone when reporting these things. This is more and more seeming like a personal vendetta against the user, and that does not reflect well on yourself. If you really want admins to look at this, then WP:ANI is the correct place to report it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, I'll do that. While it may look more and more to you as though I have a vendetta against Psikxas, I do not; my reaction to this type of persistent attempt at promotion, continued disregard for community standards, and apparently disingenuous behaviour would be similar no matter who would do it. It looks more and more to me as though Psikxas is intent on damaging the project, and I'm not comfortable sitting back and letting him or her do so. Obviously there are fine lines between article ownership and article stewardship; I stand behind the progression of my tone towards Psikxas as his/her behaviour has made it harder and harder to assume good faith. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Stubs? Links? Categories?

Hello again. I have finally posted my first wiki. My only issues, remaining (that I am aware of presently) are those which I have read and read and read and read about but not found any real answers.

1. Stubs: Do I need stubs? If so, how do I know what stubs I need to use, where can I find a full list of stubs to choose from? And, how do I type the stub into the wiki? ie. format of stub in wiki

2. Categories: I have added two categories but not absolutely sure I have chosen the correct categories. How do I choose categories? Some of the categories I thought it was offering as pre-existing actually did not exist at all.

3. Search keywords: This I am at a complete loss. I realize that one wiki is linked to another and so on, and how to do this [[]]. However, the wiki is named NanoScale Corporation. However, if I simply type NanoScale in the search bar, it redirects me to a wiki about nanotechnology.... Obviously redirects will not fix this issue, how do I fix it, so that the first word of the name when used as a search word, gives the option to view NanoScale Corporation or the nanotechnology wiki, and the same with NanoScale Corp?

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by NHearn (talk • contribs) 17:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Answering at the article talk page... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you again. Your input is greatly appreciated and very helpful! This has been a challenging and somewhat intimidating experience, although an exciting one as well. I will keep in mind the tips and information you have provided. But I wanted to thank you so much for making this a bit less scary. NHearn (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Anytime you need help, let me know. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You are mentioned in a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct

You are mentioned in a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. The Request for Comment page is here. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thanks for answering my poker hand question on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk!--Ye Olde Luke (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC on Joseph Priestley lead image alignment

A RfC has been opened to discuss the issue of alignment of the lead image on the Joseph Priestley article. Because you have previously commented or been involved with this issue at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joseph Priestley, your input is requested. Please stop by Talk:Joseph Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment and leave any feedback you may have. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible phony reference created by User:Psikxas

Hello Jayron32. You are one of the admins who looked into this issue. The concern about the Karheim article was recently archived from AN with no action, and User:Scheinwerfermann reposted the question at WP:ANI#Still unresolved. Based on the evidence so far, and the evasive response by User:Psikxas, I would be inclined to issue an indef block of Psikxas. Would you have any comment on this idea? He seems to have no idea that linking from Headlamp and Karheim to a forged reference is a serious matter. Even if he were not the one to create the fake document, his nonchalance seems like a form of willing deception. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm

"Well, I have left a stern warning at Radiopathy's talk page. Lets just say that the ball is in his court now. Lets see what he does with it..." He blatantly ignores it and blanks it. What now? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing. People are allowed to remove messages from their talk pages once read. He has done nothing wrong since being warned. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

IP block

I was hoping they'd retract the threat, so I could unblock. However, they seem to have just disappeared, so I'll shorten this a bit. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

all good. Toodles! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Gerald Walpin

I was pretty surprised at your nom of this article. Did you bother to do a google news search? The guy has a long career of interesting and notable cases. I hope you'll use more diligence in the future. It's also distressing to me that you appear to have signed on with the POV pushers in hounding and targeting editors with whom they disagree over political issues. That type of censorship and abuse is totally unaccpetable and I was truly very surprised to see you taking part in it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I find your accusations unfounded, and I am personally hurt and insulted. I have never held any particular opinion one way or the other on these political articles. I tripped over the article when i noticed the recently closed AFD on the "firing of..." article, and I thought that it was prudent to nominate this one, as the same issues raised at the "firing of" article still existed in this article, namely that this person does not appear notable. If the information on his firing is relevent enough to keep at Wikipedia, I see no problem with including that information in, say Presidency of Barack Obama or perhaps another related article. However, there does not seem to be a compelling reason to keep an article around on this person merely to preserve that information. Let me state that again; I would raise no objection to including this information elsewhere in the encyclopedia; however the use of a WP:BLP merely to do so is a problem. As far as your accusation that I did not do any "due dilligence" on this person before nominating, I did. The relevent Google News search turned up a lot of "name drops" but not the depth-of-coverage that one would expect to pass WP:N test; namely that "sources address the subject directly in detail," that is something more than "So-and-so's attorney was Gerald Walpin" or "Gerald Walpin, the federal prosecutor in the case, made opening arguements". One thousand single-sentance mentions does not add up to "addressing the subject directly in detail". I would gladly withdraw the nomination if sources can be provided which show that depth of detail. Let me state that again. I will withdraw the nomination if you can find sources to refute these problems. I am still very upset and hurt, however, that you personally attack me in this way for doing nothing than making a good faith nomination of an article on a WP:BLP which I have found to be lacking in notability. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I came by to remove my comment after your accusation against me that I made a personal attack. That's a highly charged statement to make, particularly in the current context and climate that I'm editing under.

I came here and posted on your page to discuss an issue of concern to me and your aggressive reaction is even more disturbing than the previous actions I wanted to discuss with you. There's no way to have a discussion with someone, let alone an admin, who would launch the "personal attack" accusation at me as you have. Obviously, my initial take on your judgment was warranted and the problem is far more serious than I had imagined. I will have nothing more to say to you. I find the implied threats in your statements to be toxic, wholly unwarranted, and despicable. But now I know. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The above user, who talks about "aggressive POV pushers and policy abusers", among his milder personal attacks, is himself right at the top of that list, and has been from day one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, please do not attack ChildofMidnight in this way; two wrongs to not make a right here, and attacking him by calling him names is not warrented. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I resisted confronting him during his block, but I'm fed up with that guy. I am very angry about his continual personal attacks against everyone who dares to try to keep the Obama articles neutral. His actions on the night of March 8/9 cemented his place here as a Grade-A POV-pusher. His actions since then continue to demonstrate it. I am done with him, and you may delete all my comments from this page as you see fit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32 - At Talk:Presidency_of_Barack_Obama, I suggested adding info about Gerald Walpin to Presidency_of_Barack_Obama. It was suggested to me that the info be put into a separate article.

So, I created Gerald Walpin firing. Afterward, I created Gerald Walpin and redirected it to Gerald Walpin firing, because at the time, the article was about the event, not the person.

Later, someone else nominated Gerald Walpin firing for deletion. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin firing, multiple people suggested that Gerald Walpin firing be deleted, and that the info from it be merged into Gerald Walpin.

Now you are nominating Gerald Walpin for deletion. Please see my comments at Talk:Gerald Walpin for how to improve Gerald Walpin. Thank you.

Grundle2600 (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I was not involved in that discussion at Presidency of Barack Obama. I personally don't see any problem with including information about this issue (being careful to avoid WP:UNDUE problems) about this topic in that article. If other editors have such a problem, please take it up with them. I have explained above and elsewhere the rationale behind the nomination for deletion. If the article on Walpin is to be kept, I think the best thing is to find some sources which show the depth-of-coverage (addressing the subject directly in detail, per WP:N) and not just little one-sentance mentions of the person. If all we have is a bunch of one-sentance mentions of the person, then a burst of WP:BLP1E-type coverage, then I am not sure the article can be saved. However, if there can be demonstrated that he was notable before being fired, I have no problem with keeping the article around, and will gladly withdraw my nomination. I am not really opposed to keeping the article provided those sources can be shown to exist; its just that I could not find them myself in the relevent searches... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I only created Gerald Walpin as a redirect to Firing of Gerald Walpin. My interest is in the event, not the person. It was other people who thought the person was notable. I just want the information to be somewhere. It seems that I'm not allowed to have it anywhere. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what you mean by "I am not allowed..." Please do not take this personally. As I stated several times, you will get no objection from me to include this information in an appropriate place; I just do not feel, as yet, that this person is notable enough to warrent an article outside of this little burst of recent news. I think we need to seperate three things: 1) Whether the event itself is relevent enough to include in Wikipedia somewhere (on that I will concede it might be) 2) Whether such event merits its own article rather than a mention in another article (probably not) 3) Whether, as yet, this person can be shown to support an article based on WP:N requirements (not yet). My involvement in this case has only been with #3, so don't drag me in to issues #1 and #2. Also, issue #3 is an easy fix, if the sources exist. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Jayron, how can you say you don't know what he means by he's "not allowed"? You just helped ban him from these articles including the ones he created. And now they're getting picked off one by one. Just as they go after any editor who has the audacity to try to include perspectives that don't tow the liberal and pro-Obama line. I'm not saying Grundle is perfect, but he's created lots of great articles including on these subjects. We're a collaborative encyclopedia, not one where only one viewpoint and only editors with a certain brand of politics are allowed to edit. These people have come after Collect, they've come after me, they've come after Grundle. They have numbers, so they're going on the attack and it's censorship. It's wrong. It's inappropriate. It's outrageous. It's sickening. It needs to stop. There's no reason Grundle can't be worked with on these articles. I want to see the contributions that Tarc and Baseball Bug have made to political topics. Where are the articles they've created on these subjects? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've seen my name thrown out today by CoM as a "POV pusher" at least on 3 different occasions. I'll just point out that I haven't edited any articles in which he's involved in, that I am aware of, in quite some time. I think there was 1 or 2 a month ago but pretty much all has been quiet between us since. I didn't even participate in the Arbcom discussion although I certainly could have with a cache of diffs to prove the pot/kettle similarity of CoM. I'm assuming he now has an issue with me because I supported the topic ban of Grundle at the related AN/I thread. Let it be known that I've never edited an article that Grundle has created. Not even a vandalism revert that I am aware of. Continued slandering of me all over wiki-kingdom by CoM is really getting old while he continues to attack other users and then play his usual "they are picking on me" game. He's obviously further on the attack against me because of the AN/I thread I started today about his personal attacks where, while blocked today, he referred to other editors as "assholes" and "monkeys" on his talk page. Don't be fooled by this charade Jayron. Just follow the diffs trail, the proof is in the pudding so to speak. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 02:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your concerns, but I am not really interested on antagonizing this situation any further. I am not particularly interested in the politics on either side of this issue, but the incivility would likely stop if either side stopped antagonzing the other. I am not saying that you (or even he) does not have legitimate concerns here. You very well may have legitimate concerns over COM's behavior here and elsewhere. You may also be within your rights to ask for remediation over those concerns. My only statement is that exercising those rights may not always be what is best. Being in the right and doing what is right are not always the same thing. I am merely trying to find a way to difuse the situation. Could we get people thrown out of Wikipedia? Possibly. Is that going to help everyone more than learning to work together, even with people we vehemently disagree with? Probably not... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 02:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Arbitration enforcement

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Motion:_re_SlimVirgin#Restriction_on_arbitration_enforcement_activity

This removal was not only a revert of a banned user but also, as I made clear at User talk:ChildofMidnight, an arbitration enforcement action. Unilateral reversal is explicitly forbidden. Please revert yourself; if you wish to insert a placeholder to indicate that comments have been removed, that would obviously be a good compromise - I would do so myself but it could be construed as wheel-warring. CIreland (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on your comments at my talk page, I just wish to clarify that I never had the slightest intention of blocking ChildOfMidnight, I intended to do nothing more than advise him of the scope of his topic ban. If anyone were to subsequently propose blocking CoM for the edit, I would have oppose them in debate. CIreland (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

does this work? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That's fine by me. CIreland (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Good deal! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thank you for answering my Earth as Time Keeper question on the Science Reference Desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeking mentor

I am currently in "hot water" in Wikipedia. My previous mentor Shell (a highly respected administrator, which is why I chose her) did not want to mentor me anymore and is very put out with me. The history is in our voluminous archived talk pages; the current problems are in my current talk pages, with their links to a proposed "topic ban" and now a proposed "community ban". I was already thinking of asking for a new mentor and someone today suggested (compassionately) that I do that. Would you be willing to take me on (if I am not banned from the community)? I need to spend a lot of time in the near future offline and not able to be very active over the summer and the fall (and therefore would not be "troubling" Wikipedia anyway, but when I am able to check in to Wikipedia, I believe I need further mentoring. Thanks for considering this request (if you do). --NYScholar (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you have been here a while, and seem to have had ample time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia. What sort of mentoring do you need? From what I can read about the community ban discussion, you seem to have some trouble understanding house style with regards to referencing articles. Do you need help in learning this house style? What sort of direction do you need? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Despite having been editing here as NYScholar since June 2005, I still (according to several other editors and Shell) have serious problems with interpersonal interactions with these other Wikipedia editors and administrators (including Shell); I am too wordy for any of their tastes, and they interpret what I write differently from what I am intending to say. Please see the suggestions of Abd on my current talk page and the contexts in the current proposed "topic ban" and "community ban" discussions and the historical contexts of what they link to. It's a long ongoing situation. I don't really see any "house style" in WP:MOS via the link to WP:CITE, because there are many different "optional" guidelines given, any of which, MOS states, via WP:CITE, is reasonable as long as it is "consistent". I am afraid that I do not currently have the time to engage in changing the MLA style citations in Harold Pinter; others will have to do that. The information I provide in "full citations" can easily be converted by those with experience in doing whatever it is these editors are wanting to do. The larger problems are in how to interact with any of them in the future (when I may have time to return to editing Wikipedia articles). The amount of time I have had to take to deal with the "topic ban" discussion initiated by two other editors over the past few days is the end of the time that I have to edit Wikipedia in the near future. I've provided 2 new articles (yesterday) and some minor edits, but that's it for now. It would be a longterm mentorship picking up later in the summer or fall, since I have to work outside Wikipedia all summer and some of fall and also will be traveling for work in fall. --NYScholar (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I will try to be as helpful as I can, I suppose, but I'm still unclear on what kind of aid you need? I am very comfortable helping navagate any technical aspect of editing Wikipedia, but I do not know exactly what sorts of aid you need with "interpersonal interactions?" If you are having a specific problem in a specific situation, I would be glad to help, but I am not sure what what help I can offer given the nebulous nature of the problems you seem to be describing. You say that others are not understanding what you mean when you type something; I'm afraid that I do not have access to the inner workings of your mind, so I am not sure what help I can be there. But if you can point me to a specific editing problem you are having, I will see where I can help you work through it if I can... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Those central to wanting to institute a community ban of me as an editor of Wikipedia say that my comments are too long when I respond to others' comments and requests for explanations. Evidence of my thoughts and thought processes is already present throughout my talk pages, if you need examples. I do not expect you or anyone else to be a mind-reader, and so I do explain what I mean extensively and, I think, clearly. But, despite having asked for responses, they just don't want to read such lengthy comments.

My prose in Wikipedia articles is clear, I believe. Any literate person should be able to understand it. But the so-called general reader of Wikipedia, according to these other editors, need simpler sentences. When that is pointed out, I do break up my more complex sentences into shorter simple ones. Nevertheless, conventional documentation is to add a source citation (endnote superscript) at the end of a clause or sentence, to avoid disruption of sentence coherence. That results in the use of more complex sentences using semicolons to separate independent clauses or in the repeating of source citations (endnote superscript numbers). Yet, this solution of using a complex sentence, apparently, is not acceptable to many Wikipedia editors, who state that the "general reader" will not understand, that it is "too complex" for such a reader. I think that many Wikipedia editors underestimate the competence of the "general reader" of English-speaking Wikipedia and do not recognize that the readership is highly diverse, heterogenous, and not homogenous. The result can be an inadvertent "dumbing down" of articles in the humanities (which I do not find in articles in the Sciences and technical subjects in Wikipedia. Literary studies is no less a discipline than the Sciences and other technical subjects, yet Wikipedia editors whom I encounter in these disputes do not seem to recognize that.

Unfamiliar with conventional academic source citations in the field of literature, many of these Wikipedia editors are adamant about using what they call "Wikipedia standard" citations (which you also mentioned). Yet, according to the current version of WP:MOS and WP:CITE, there is no such single "recommended" Wikipedia standard citation style (no such single "recommended" citation "house style"). In other words, the current WP:MOS (a series of often "optional style guidelines") does not support that position. The discrepancy between what one finds in the WP:MOS (currently in places under dispute) and what these editors claim is "Wikipedia standard" is leading to further communication problems among all of us editors.

Moreover, there appears to be some kind of entrenched cultural antipathy to American academic scholars and expert scholarship in Wikipedia, when one is writing about a subject relating to the UK and Australia, particularly. Such obvious antipathy makes it difficult, sometimes impossible, to communicate with them. There is little to no respect for what well-trained American academic teachers and scholars have to offer this project, despite the location of Wikipedia in America and the likelihood that there are more American readers and writers involved in Wikipedia than any other "variety of English"-speaking group. The under-the-radar "politics" of Wikipedia is very difficult to navigate (see Abd's comment on my talk page), and perhaps you can help me with navigating (or steering clear of) it.

The specifics of these situations are currently still located in my own archived talk pages and being referred to, often indirectly, in the current Administrators Noticeboard, where I believe oversimplified restatements of sometimes very complex situations (documented in Wikipedia archives of project pages and talk pages) are being made by former participants in previous disputes and "endorsements" of banning me are accruing, based on previous comments of an endorser, in the manner of the game Telephone (or the film [[Rumor (film)|Rumor).

Although I will not be editing articles in Wikipedia for extended periods of time, I have moved a copy of the current version of Harold Pinter into my own user sandbox as well as printed it out for future reference if it is needed. I will not be working on it further in the near future, and, obviously, if topic-banned or community-banned, not at all. I am not sure at this time whether or not a community ban will be instituted. If it is, there can be no future mentorship of me, so this request would become moot.

While these other editors tend to insist that there is something wrong with me personally and that no one else has any significant role in these communication conflicts (disputes), it appears to me that the Wikipedia "community" is highly dysfunctional when it comes to accepting the work of professional American academic scholars and editors.

I will need additional assistance with determining whether or not and how a professional American academic scholar and editor like me whose fields of expertise include British drama and theater (theatre), particularly Harold Pinter, can function productively in an environment sometimes dominated by mostly amateur editors who are familiar only or mostly with writing in and for Wikipedia and not familiar with the conventional documentation formats and standards set forth in other style guides taught in colleges and universities in the United States and many other English-speaking countries. The so-called general reader educated from high school on in the U.S. is taught these formats and standards and should be able to understand them when they are used in Wikipedia articles. But the claim to the contrary is prevailing in the attempt to "ban" me (from topic and/or from Wikipedia entirely). --NYScholar (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

JUst to correct one misconception you have; the Wikipedia community is not against "accepting the work of professional academic scholars". Actually, the way Wikipedia works is that work is judged solely on its own merit; people's opinion of it is uncolored by the qualifications of the person who wrote it. By necessity; there is no way to verify the creditials of its writers, which is why the citation requirements of Wikipedia are different from other venues. Wikipedia is against adding extra weight to the work of people who claim they are professional academic scholars; but that does not mean it is harder for you to edit, being a professional academic scholar. It just doesn't give you extra leeway in not following verification and citation guidelines and policies. Otherwise, you are going to have to find another mentor. I am not comfortable being the your mouthpiece to the rest of the community. I work well in mentoring users in becoming familiar with the technical aspects of editing Wikipedia, and in helping them navigate the various policy and guidelines here when they are unfamiliar with them. It is clear you are familiar with our policies and guidelines; you just don't feel like you need to follow them, because as "professional academic scholar", you seem to think you are free to disregard them in favor of standards in place in other venues. Fine. But find someone else who can advocate for you then. I am not terribly interested. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that is how you see what I wrote. Maybe I should get used to being misconstrued. I do certainly follow WP:MOS. My point above is that there is a serious discrepancy between what WP:MOS/WP:CITE states—that there is no single recommended citation style in Wikipedia, but rather many possible optional citation styles, one of which is parenthetical referencing (MLA style being one of them), which I used in Harold Pinter, which meets all WP:LOP—and these editors' position that there is such a thing as Wikipedia citation "house style". Please see WP:MOS/WP:CITE for what I am referring to. I understand that you are "not terribly interested"; that's fine; but please do not believe or state that I "don't feel like [I] need to follow [WP] policies and guidelines." The opposite is actually the case. I follow them precisely. (cont.)

The discrepancy is between what editors are claiming is "standard" citation style and what the WP:MOS/WP:CITE actually states. I follow the "prevailing citation style" in articles that exist prior to my getting to them if that style is consistent; otherwise, I attempt to use a consistent style, often employing "citation templates" for many kinds of subjects. But for literary subjects, espec. in articles that I have created or that I have been one of the main contributors, or the main contributor, I have followed WP:CITE to the letter and used "full citations" using the very latest edition of MLA style. See e.g, Harold Pinter and politics, which meets WP:V in its use of full citations in use of MLA style parenthetical referencing and endnotes (compatible in MLA style). Or see many of the other articles I've worked on over the years via my user page messages from others, or my contributions link. I am totally in agreement with following WP:V and WP:CITE via "full citations". The style is what people are arguing about; and MLA style is currently permitted via WP:CITE's references to parenthetical referencing as an optional style possibility. (cont.)

I understand that your own position is that you don't want to mentor me, however. Thanks anyway. --NYScholar (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do honestly wish you good luck then. It seems you have run into a bit of trouble here, and I do not wish you ill. I am just not comfortable taking on a mentoring position that you seem to need. Good luck with finding someone! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. (While we were posting here, someone posted an invitation on my talk page, and I've asked this person to look at some of the talk page and AN/I discussions.) Good luck to you too. --NYScholar (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Nashville

Don't be a luzr. Bullzeye and the_undertow will be there, too. Also maybe MZMcBride and east718. لennavecia 16:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

But I am a luzr. Got plans already to visit the 'rents with my kids, which is gonna blow my vacation budget. Plus, why go to Nashville, Tennessee. There's another Nashville much closer to where I live, and there's even a snazzy Country music theatre nearby. Who needs that Grand Ol Opry stuff anyways? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Eff the Grand Ole Opry. BRC, baby. Way to fail. لennavecia 18:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

TN > NC, at least as far as Nashvilles go. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you been to Nashville, NC? They have a gas station where you can get Mountain Dew by the bottle! And like three exits from US-64! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

We have several microbreweries, and are significantly closer to the Jack Daniel's Distillery. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My apologies

For accidentally reverting you on User talk:Gogo Dodo. Cheers, → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 02:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No prob. Thanks for being so dilligent! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the MascotGuy impostor. There have been a few of them around lately. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt as Admin

I've had a couple skeletons in my closet, not vandalism, just a couple of arguments with other users which went unnoticed (no blocks). I've started this account because after a through review of WP:SOCK I've determined one thing: yes, I can "start over". However, can a fresh start ever become an admin? I have created this account, well I guess, to evade ppl at my AfDs from looking too far in my past ... and according to WP:SOCK that violates policy. ThaMoonwalker (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture nomination

Hi - I just wanted to say thanks for nominating my mating moths picture as a featured picture candidate! It's my first one, and it never would have crossed my mind to nominate it, especially because I just took it while running for a bus. I missed the bus, but learnt something about moths, so it worked out alright! Thanks again --Kateshortforbob 10:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I have never nominated a featured pic before; there's a very good chance I misjudged the criteria; there are some people who comment that are real sticklers for techincal things, but I think based on composition alone, your pic is quite high quality! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Careful

You used a naughty word in your edit summary, so quake in your boots lest you be blocked. As an admin you can't do that, but I'm not an admin so I can swear all I want. So there. The sad thing is that I'm not all that certain whether I'm joking or not. Bleah. This place sucks more every day. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Fuck that... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Doll's rule in evolutionary biology

Hi! Thanks for your quick response. You have really saved me a lot of time. Yes, as you told, it would be “Dollo’s law”. There should have been a typo error in the syllabus. Yeswanthrm (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

National Memorial Ride

I could use some help. You seem to be the one with the issue over the National Memorial Ride. How do I format it so that it is not advertising?? Ive tried to answer the basic questions of who, what where and how. I posted references that are third party. When I look at the Canadian Army Veterans (The CAV) wiki article, all its references are to its own web site and those links dont work. It is a FOR PROFIT organization owned by one man, yet its blatant advertisement is allowed to exist. The Ride existed, it took place, and with 328 riders showing up from across Ontario and Quebec, it is notable. That it was the first time Motorcyclist were allowed to ride into a Canadian Cemetery is notable. Yet you seem to have an issue with this, can you please point out how we are advertising, and the The CAV is not??--GankT19 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, I looked at some of your favorite good sites, for example the Hogettes, How are we any different? Most of thier links go back to thier own site. The raise money by attending games in ladies clothing, we raise money and hold a remembrance service to help wounded Canadian Soldiers adapt back into society. Wikipedia has a flag for getting more articles on motorcycling, here is an event, yet you claim it is not noteworth and advertising. Look, we both have better things to do that creating and deleting this. Can you help me get it formated in a way that passes muster? Im not a Web guy, just a retired Tank driver, who now rides a bike

cheers --GankT19 (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, I did a wiki search and found these articles, the have the noteablility and advertising qualities as our article, more in many cases AIDS Vaccine 200,Knoebels' Amusement Resort

Love Ride,Chick-fil-A Kyle Petty Charity Ride Across America, Ride for Heart,Freewheelers EVS John Derringer (commentator), 2008 Centurion Boats at the Glen, Riding Into History,Warlock Motorcycles, and Institute of Advanced Motorists. How are we any different??--GankT19 (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• • The existance of another article at Wikipedia has no bearing on your article. If you believe that another article does not meet our inclusion criteria, as spelled out very clearly at WP:N, then you may nominate it for deletion. However, merely because you find another article at Wikipedia which should be deleted, but has not yet been, that does not make Wikipedia free for all where you can just create other deletable articles willy-nilly. If you would like, I can move a draft copy of the article to your userspace so that you may work on it without fear of it being deleted. Would you like that? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
    • That would be great. I am trying to follow the rules, but its hard when you look at other like sites that are making bigger errors than the one that keeps getting flagged and they do not seem to be tagged as an issue. Are there any parts in particular with our last one that was an issue? I added a number of third part sites, including a Member of Parliaments Web page as he was representing the Gov't of Canada. I was also hoping this would have met the requirements of the Wiki Motorcycle efforts. Cheers

--GankT19 (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • Thanks that gives me something to work on. You are correct the event has yet to be written up in a book, or paper, or Magazine. Thats our fault, our Media relations in traditional forms fell through the cracks. Something to note for next year. Thanks for moving it and fixing the format.--GankT19 (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

Thanks Jayron. I must explain myself. Actually the block was set to expire yesterday and it did and I was able to edit. But suddenly today the block came back for no reason. I didnot understand what was happening hence I put the templates. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, weird shit like that happens sometime. No worries tho... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your message

Just letting you know that despite your flattering assessment of my 'level of knowledge' about the encyclopedia' (in fact derived from 5-10 minutes reading the relevant articles on editing) this is my first and only Wikipedia account. Simeon Stylites (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't even try to make that claim. No one shows up at Wikipedia for the first time in their lives and nominates an article for deletion at WP:AFD in their very first edit. Such an action goes beyond reading a few manuals... It demonstrates a familiarity with the entire culture of Wikipedia beyone what one could get from reading some manuals. You have been here before June 27, 2009, when your first edit with THIS account was to make a well formatted AFD nomination, complete with a full understanding of Wikijargon. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing

Please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.

Notice delivery by xenobot 14:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Acoustic Graffiti and Oleg Lapidus Wikipedia Articles

Dear Jayron32,

As you know Pianocrasher page was meant to be moved to Eugenie Absalom page. I sent a request to administration asking for it.

Information in two articles: Acoustic Graffiti and Oleg Lapidus was moved to Wikipedia main page not exactly the way I was planning to do it (as I thought that was being moved to Eugenie Absalom page).

I already added two paragraphs of text to Acoustic Graffiti article and reference list.

It means that two paragraphs can be taken off Oleg Lapidus article - I intended to leave just intro and biography of Oleg Lapidus in it.

Alternatively just one article can be left with the full amount of information in it.

I consider Oleg Lapidus a notable person because he has four music educations as stated in his biography and he combines his professional music skills and creative vision in developing a new art trend - Acoustic Graffiti, which has similar artistic vision as Street piano - one of the Wikipedia entries.

I gave eleven references to support the entry so far I can expand on the reference list. The image supplied with the article is my own and I am planning to upload more images (Acoustic Graffiti).

I wonder if you could possibly give me some time to do so, please?

Yours sincerely,

Eugenie Absalom --Eugenie Absalom (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As I "moved" the page from Userspace to Articlespace(s) I have copied them to User:Pianocrasher/Sandbox1 and User:Pianocrasher/Sandbox2 pending the AFD. Thanks,  Badgernet  ₪  16:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Will you adopt me?

I want an admin who is not busy. --TheCommunityWave (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I may be an admin, but I am kinda busy. If you have any specific questions, or need any help doing something, of course I would be glad to. However, I don't really have the time for a formal adoption right now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Hi, Just wanted to ask.. how come you tagged [8] as AfD? Surely it is CSD material if it is a copyvio? — Deon555^talk_{I'm BACK!} 01:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't catch the copyvio. Sometimes, even someone as awesome as me misses something. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Lucky you had someone even awesome-r to catch you up on it then! — Deon555^talk_{I'm BACK!} 12:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking IP address

I was indeed affected by this block, as I have an account on this machine and am a contributor to this project. Thank you for reviewing and unblocking this for me, though.

Kitambi (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Soccermeko

I believe Soccermeko to be back. You had a lot of experience with him the last time around, so your review and comments are welcome at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Soccermeko.—Kww(talk) 02:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That was fast. I take it you thought it was as obvious as I did.—Kww(talk) 02:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, he's learning. This one lasted almost a month. He learned that the Nicole Wray thing was a dead giveaway, so it looks like he's expanded to other female R&B singers. But his editing style and talk page demeanor is unmistakable. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

He did a lot in a month. My fingers are tired from typing {{db-banned}} all over everything.—Kww(talk) 03:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

minor suggestion for dramaout

Maybe a box (similar to an award) thanking those for article writing during the dramaout period. Just a thought. Too early to give it out now because the period hasn't even started. I will plan article writing a few days ahead of time to practice/get used to withdrawal symptoms. In other words, a few days before the dramaout, I may stop editing completely as I suffer withdrawal and also plan what articles to write. Come Sunday or Monday Juy 19th/20th, I'll start with a bang.User F203 (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I made a comment in ANI. See, even if it doesn't increase drama, it takes away time from editing. This is another reason for me to participate in the article campaign next week. User F203 (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

More info

Thanks for your help and also is the CVU only for admins --Meteorman7228 (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Caution Advised...

with this editor. Possibly trying to frame User:Werdna, another admin.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 23:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Werdna is "andrew" backwards, and tends to show up all over the place, not the least of which because Werdna is also one of the main characters in the classic video game series Wizardry. I have run into dozens of Werdnas across the internet, and none are related. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

deplorable edit summaries

Hello Jayron, I came across this user's contribs and warned him on his talk page but I think more eyes will be necessary. He's been getting away with it for some time. Thank you for looking,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've watchlisted his talk page. Thanks for warning him. If he steps out of line like that anymore, he's not long for Wikipedia. I wonder how he's lasted this long. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI

I really do not mind you keeping it open. I don't get the email thing. I really think that we should let PD play this out. Law _{type! snype?} 12:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just tired of reading that rediculousness in a public forum like ANI. You did nothing wrong; it just reads like he's out for revenge. If you two want to work out your differences at your talk page, that's fine, but there really isn't anything that other admins need to do here. If it stayed much longer at ANI, there WOULD be something for admins to do, and I don't really want to deal with the drama when someone crosses some line and gets themselves blocked. Let's keep this in the semi-privacy of your talk page and avoid letting this blow out of proportion. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 16:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

FP!

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Joined moths.JPG, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again, Jayron32, for nominating this. --Kateshortforbob 14:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Dear Jayron,

Thanks very much for your notes. I will follow the instructions to revise the article I tried to creat. Could you please unlock my PC-id. Now I can't open it. when can I start to creat the page again? Thanks very much for your helpRose718 (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Carrt81's accusations about multiple user accounts by Victor

Hello Jayron32, one of the accused sockpuppets of mine Sbharris has responded to Carrt81, here [[9]], proving I am not a sockpuppet of that name or JohnTex as Carrt81 has announced on the board. For what it is worth.--Victor9876 (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Oddoflyoko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of MataNui44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whom you recently blocked. Thatcher 21:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Jeremie Belpois (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Clab6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are sockpuppets of each other and seem likely on contribs to be the same person as well. Thatcher 21:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Rollback Rights

Hey Jayron,

I took off a couple weeks from wikipedia. There is just SOOOO much out there, and so little me. I've stuck to copy-editing articles, and reverting vandalism as a way of helping the community. I've installed Lupin's tools, and I have Twinkle set-up. Can you give me rollback rights to make vandal-fighting easier?

Hope you had a Happy 4th!

StNicksRocks (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you sir! You won't be disappointed.  :) StNicksRocks (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to say something...

Good work taking the dramaout idea. It is a good idea. AN/I is an addictive place for many users and this would be a good time to show everyone that if we didn't keep relying on AN/I all the time to solve every dispute, we'd actually get a lot more work done.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 01:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to doing some article work myself. Not sure what I am going to do, but there are some lists I think I can bring up to WP:FL level. Probably do some gnome work too. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 01:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Phinditt

Per your suggestion, I started an AfD here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

All good. I am not endorsing the article by declining the speedy; but it didn't look like speedy material. Personally, I think it will probably end up being deleted anyways, but there was at least enough there to discuss. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

blocked User SOPHIAN

You may also be interested in my summaries, as an admin who has been involved in SOPHIAN controversies: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=302387535&oldid=302377030 --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Danwilson82

Thanks for the message, I have already informed wikipedia of the users actions as I feel he vandalised the page I was editing. My actions were in good faith, not intended to cause any harm and the only reason I violated guide lines was by mistake. The user then insulted me, was rude, abusive and for this reason I took it further and above you. Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danwilson82 (talk • contribs)

Actually, reviewing the situation, all the user did was to inform you of Wikipedia policies. It was you who left made statements like This edit summary which imply your willingness to edit war and This edit summary where you call someone a "Tit" and this edit where you call a long established editor an "idiot" and a "twelve-year-old". I can see zero evidence where Smashville even once used improper language or was rude towards you. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 20:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Stewart Downing Photograph

Hello, I was just trying to update the photograph for Stewart Downing but the page will not let me. I read the guide lines and they said I should contact the admin who locked the page and I believe that was you.

This football player moved to my club yesterday and on his page it still shows him in the old teams shirt. I have permission from the Aston Villa F.C website to upload a new picture taken by them yesterday. By the way, I thought I should also inform you that the picture currently on the page is a copyright breach. It featured in an english football magazine and that isn't allowed as far as i'm aware, just thought you may like to speak to the alledged copyright owner.

Regards

Villainnumber1 (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[10] shows that the picture that you and several other people are trying to upload is not taken by you. The copyright clearly belongs to whoever took it. If you did take the picture yourself, you would need to prove this by contacting the Wikimedia Foundation as described at WP:IOWN.--Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 16:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Medieval. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Thank you. I was looking at the history of the article over a greater time frame. There are alot of edits related to redirecting etc. Also I don't appreciate being called a "newb". Patchy1Talk To Me! 13:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hold on -- what happened to WP:AGF and WP:DTTR? Why a formal warning instead of asking Jayron what he meant? Why assume the 'newb' was you when it was Dolons (talk · contribs) who removed the redirect and is definitely a 'newb' going by the fact that he has only made 23 edits and those were all yesterday. I suggest you strike this out. Dougweller (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, you are absolutely correct. I over reacted. I was trying to bring this article to the attention of more experienced editors such as yourself. Granted the edits have been over the past few years, but it has been edited backwards and fowards weather it should or shouldn't be a redirect. When I first saw the article, it had some relevant information, that would not be out of place on Middle Ages (disambiguation). I was hoping an AFD would spark this discussion. As the article stands now, is fine I beileve. Patchy1Talk To Me! 14:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

NODRAMA

awesome! :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This may the the Greatest Day of My Life. Let User:User F203 know about it, he deserves as much credit as I do for creating the idea. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 19:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I would remind you that the Dramaout begins in 3 hours.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 21:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting ready. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 21:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of this as a temporary user talkpage header? I've put it in place on my talk page. Tweaking invited. If you like it, use it. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this

Please note that I have found and am in the process of referencing out of universe context per [11], which is only the surface of what I have found on Google Books. Please reconsider. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Srs

You got some pretty big support for the greatest Wiki-Holiday ever. Nice work. Law _{type! snype?} 13:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ya, you're awesome. Good idea, bud. Especially good times coming from you, too, considering that after I convinced you to get adminship, you jumped head first into the deep end of the dramaboards. XD Anyway, that's not really why I'm here, but it is related. I'm working on an article here and I realize why I don't write articles by myself... I suck at writing original prose. I'm all about finding sources and information, and I'm good to copy-edit and rework other people's prose, but I just can't do original prose. At least not to a standard I can publish. That said, if you have the time and inclination, stop by. If not, no big deal. Merry Monday, Lara 15:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Question about WP:NODRAMA

Would vandalism patrolling be exempt during this five-day period?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 04:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Use your discretion. I think the best use of the 5-days is to do work you can count on NO ONE ELSE doing; such as actually creating article content and cleaning up articles. The deal with vandalism patrolling is, yeah, "techincally" it is about improving articles. But a) someone else is taking care of it and b) it isn't really creating new content or cleaning up existing content. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 16:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. That's understandable. I was just curious because on the page it allows anything that helps with maintaining the articles and I thought of removing vandalism. But you are right, we should be building artices and let others protect them. Thanks.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 20:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Cognition

Just so you know (since you put up the onhold thing), I've declined to unblock Cognition for right now to clear out the backlog some, but have offered him some terms under which he can be unblocked, which include mentorship, civility and BLP probations, and a restriction to a single account. Once he accepts these and finds a mentor, he can probably be unblocked. Please feel free to comment; the terms I offered were mostly based on the AN discussion and may need some modification. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 14:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

All good. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 16:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

NODRAMA

Thanks for the thank you, but I didn't really do anything but stay out of arguments.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Same for me. Kayau Jane Eyre PRIDE AND PREJUDICE les miserables 02:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Jayron32. You have new messages at Kayau's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

So, can we start bickering again? (joke) Cheers!--TitanOne (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for organizing the No Drama Days 2009 festival. I got a lot of article work done from my to do list. The spirit of the event was very positive and I think the discussions it sparked were interesting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would greatly like to see if a similar proposal was made to avoid nominating or commenting in AfDs or on the talk pages of any notability of what Wikipedia is Not guidelines how many articles would improve as a result. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, AFDs were already verboten per the spirit of WP:NODRAMA. If it wasn't article work, you weren't supposed to do it. --Jayron32 17:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

qualified success

Based on a cursory look, the article writing campaign was a qualified success. It was not the solution to end all problems but it looks good. There's a few more measures that I want to gauge before making a final judgement, one of them requiring a post-campaign timepoint in 1 week to see the effects (not fully described because I don't want the test subject (wikipedians) to taint or influence the results.

Is there an interest to do this again in early to mid December 2009 and again 6 months later? I hope so.

There are the perpetual problems that I don't quite know the answer. They include massive incivility (usually quickly blocked), moderate incivility, changing to subject from a discussion to "you're a sock", using stock excuses like "undue weight" when the real reason is one doesn't like something, Israeli articles, Macedonia articles, Obama partisanship, global warming, etc. Do the authors of collaborative textbooks have this problem? I don't think so. I have some ideas but do you? In the mean time, repeating the article writing campaign looks to be a good thing to do twice a year. In real life, once a year is standard but on the internet, attention span is short. User F203 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

odd

During the dramaout, I saw an article where an administrator did not like a new article so he put an AFD on it (it survived) and immediately blocked the editor with the excuse...you're a sock. Probably too old but I didn't think that was particularly civil or nice. The other sockpuppet master did not edit that article so even if the users were the same, they were not faking a consensus. More likely, the users were different. Do we ignore this or not? I'm leaning towards ignoring it because I don't like drama, just editing. User F203 (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You have the luxury of being able to ignore it, the blocked user doesn't. Wasn't this supposed to be a "dramaout", not a "justiceout"? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, both of you: I was in no way involved in this problem. Please carry on this conversation at the talk page of the administrator who issued the block. If, after discussing it with that administrator, you cannot reach an understanding, the second thing you should do is start a thread at WP:ANI. I am not in a position to comment on situations where I am given scanty details and where someone throws around words like "justice" as if to poison the well. I have literally no idea what situation you are talking about, and I am not going to render an opinion on a matter that I have no knowledge of at all. If you two want to discuss one of my administrator actions, please, by all means do so. But if you are just here to complain about something that happened to someone else and did not involve me, I would be appreciative if you decided not to anymore. --Jayron32 00:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The original comment was made to ask for your advice. However, if you prefer not to give it for this case, this is an acceptable response. User F203 (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case, my advice is to directly ask the administrator who issued the block. He should engage you in civil conversation about it, and you two should be able to reach a mutual understanding. If, after attempting to discuss the matter with the admin in private, you two cannot reach an agreement, THEN your second step would be to start a thread at WP:AN for outside opinions on it. But please just take it up with the person who you believe has acted in error. The direct approach is always the best. --Jayron32 03:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If you see an accident and the driver is thrown from the car and bleeding, you should come to the driver's aid. Just driving past is bad but probably legal. What is the right thing to do with Wikipedia? I think the threshold is less stringent. If an incident is several months old, maybe leave it alone. Otherwise, ANI would be clogged with thousands of people commenting on each case and hundreds of new cases added. Malleus does have a point but I'm not in for a fight. User F203 (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Seriously. ASK THE ADMIN WHO ISSUED THE BLOCK. There is no need to make it into a "fight". Just politely ask him without taking an adversarial stance! --Jayron32 05:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Harrison

I propose a semi-protection of this article. I counted about 28 reverted edits in the last 24 hours.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 22:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. Already done.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 22:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In the future, you will get the quickest response from WP:RFPP. I would certainly always respond if I am availible, but whereas I am but one admin, there are dozens that patrol RFPP on a regular basis, and you will tend to get a faster result by asking more people. Glad to see you got it worked out tho! --Jayron32 03:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:98.23.14.232 and the Legal Threat

Hi Jayron,

As you'd know I stuck a warning template on that Anon's page about the incitement to take legal action he made regarding User:Mike R. I was going to report it, but I wasn't sure where one reports legal threats and like issues. Is it WP:ANI or somewhere else? There are so many noticeboards. Cheers, Crafty (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like while you were warning him, I was busy blocking him already. He's not exactly been a model Wikicitizen to this point, and NLT is usually an instablock sort of thing anyways. If you are trying to get an admins attention and report this stuff, WP:ANI is the proper venue. --Jayron32 12:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

opinion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_(novel)

Should this article be deleted? What is your opinion? I don't know the guidelines well enough. I do like Finland. That's the F in my user name. The author of the book is Finnish. However, she is not that famous. Very famous authors' books are deemed notable. User F203 (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The author's page, both here and at the Finish Wikipedia seems to indicate that she's a well-published author. She's been writing books for 30 years, and you don't do that unless you are good enough to make a living at it. It would appear as though she is plainly notable, which would mean that in general her books are notable. I would actually get someone from Finland to give an opinion as well. If you are really concerned, try WP:AFD and see what others think. --Jayron32 05:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Nodrama Barnstar

		The Anti-Drama Barnstar
		Thank you for participating in The Great Wikipedia Dramaout 2009, avoiding drama for a full 5 days!--The LegendarySky Attacker 04:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject TRANSWIKI

Hi. In light of recent events and community concerns about the way in which content is transferred I have proposed a new wikiproject which would attempt to address any of the concerns and done in an environment where a major group of editors work together to transfer articles from other wikipedias in the most effective way possible without BLP or referencing problems. Please offer your thoughts at the proposal and whether or not you support or oppose the idea of a wikiproject dedicated to organizing a more efficient process of getting articles in different languages translated into English. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

dramaout report

I've taken a look at ANI to see if dramaout had an effect.

Last Monday, at 1500 UTC, the dramaout was in full swing. ANI was a mere 282 kb in length. This Monday, at 1500 UTC (a few minutes ago), ANI was 317 kb in length.

Subjectively, ANI looks longer now. During the article writing campaign, ANI did look smaller. ANI did shrink even smaller than 282 kb but I chose a point at random to avoid cherry picking the data.

Although the sample size is small, I think the project was good. User F203 (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh. I don't think ANI shrinking was really my goal. There were hundreds of articles created or improved. That's much more important in my book! --Jayron32 23:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of the Oranges

On July 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of the Oranges, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

So where's my barnstar?

I thought, as a glowing participant, that a shiny new barnstar was coming my way... - 00:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Read your talk page. I left a nice long thank-you like a week ago. Take a barnstar if it will make you feel better!

Mary Jones hoo ha

I appreciate your efforts, and know from personal experience it must've taken some time reading through all that lot, but I think the close and move are both premature, as useful discussion is still ongoing and two ideas put forward very recently (date disambiguation and "(Bible foo)" are in the early stages of discussion and look reasonably promising. It would be nice if the consensus that emerged included no opposes and certainly no strong ones, as per the heroine one, which I consider inherent POV and therefore the worst of all of the options discussed!

Cheers --Dweller (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read my comments at the talk page. The additional options were not generating any additional consensus, IMHO, and were only muddying the waters. --Jayron32 12:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I read your comments, but disagree, with respect. Your close came a scant two and a half hours after (Bible foo) was proposed. How can you expect consensus to be gained in that time? What's the rush? We may find an option that attracts no strong opposes, especially ones on policy grounds. --Dweller (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion was clearly ongoing, and while you managed to make some decision, there was no urgency here, and true consensus might still have been found. Your decision looks like vote-counting, not like consensus-building. Kusma (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding my voice to the opposition to your move. This is an interesting consensus-building exercise, and there is no need to rush it. The "folk heroine" proposal had 6 !votes for, 5 against, the last of those making the valid point that the suggested descriptor ("heroine") is highly POV. At least one other proposal, for "Mary Jones" as the primary usage, had greater support, but other viable options are also now emerging. Please reconsider and allow the discussion to be reopened. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's all yours. Have fun! --Jayron32 22:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs another Dramaout...  ;) Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I acted to a request at WP:AN to close a week-old discussion. I did so. Someone else request that I undo it. I did that. Unless it is drama to do what you are asked to do in a pleasant manner, then there's no drama here. --Jayron32 23:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

New sig

Mixing it up. Like it. Yay green. hmwithτ 13:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, getting all crazy now... --Jayron32 22:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Immigration Equality (organization)

On July 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Immigration Equality (organization), which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Question for an administrator

I want to ask your opinion if a potential article is notable. First, some background. I have no hidden political agenda.

In late 2008, with great fanfare, then Senator Obama suspended his campaign and went to Hawaii. His Hawaiian trips have been well covered by reliable sources. His trips have been much more notable than most politicians' trips.

Would a well sourced Barack Obama trips to Hawaii be a potential article to write? One source: http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSTRE49K07G20081021 Other sources cover his shave ice trip with his girls.

If Wikipedia is only about articles such as Australia, Charles de Gaulle, World War II, then the Barack Obama Trips to Hawaii would not qualify. However, WP has many minor articles and subarticlesUser F203 (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I think the merged article is not a bad solution. I try not to be too attached to where information appears; notable information on Obama's life in Hawaii seems to work well in several places, and the information is clearly preserved where it has been merged. My opinion is that its probably not significant enough of an idea apart from the article on his early life to merit a completely seperate article. Sure, we can find sources on his trips to Hawaii, but we can find lots of sources which also may report his trips to Tennessee or Timbuktu; it doesn't mean that we need a seperate article to collect all of these when the information can be reported in other articles. Also, don't try to make arguements on the existance of one article based on the existance of other articles. It usually isn't a very good arguement. Finally, I appreciate that you came for my opinion on this, but be aware that my opinion does not bear any additional weight because I am an administrator. That particular user right doesn't grant me any special status at Wikipedia. But thanks again for asking my opinion! --Jayron32 02:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: AN discussion needs your input

Thanks for the heads up, although my input (considering I only gave a 31 hour standard editwar block back in February) may not be as useful as that from say VSmith. I have given input however.  GARDEN  20:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)