Thank you for owning up to your actions. Do you now recognize the problem you participated in? Will you be wiser in the future and avoid helping friends (or others) to violate policy? Jehochman Talk 10:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you were in the "looking for adoptees" list. What is involved with getting adopted? Thanks, Shymian ( talk) 07:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed for the longest time that Wikipedia does not have a page on the Foreign TV/movie distrubutor Discotek Media. And I was wondering what the reason for it is. Other Foreign film companies have their own pages except for this one. Was it due to copyright infringement or was there another reason? If I'm allowed to start a page on Discotek Media, I'll be sure to not include any images that might possibly be copyrighted. I hope to hear your answer soon. E-Master ( talk) 01:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)E-Master
Would you kindly unprotect the Obama article, perhaps first warning people that no further edit warring will be tolerated? Full protection isn't a good way to deal with a very important, heavily edited article, and indefinite protection is unreasonable. I note the article is on probation. If anyone is edit warring you can deal with them quickly under the terms of article probation, but best to keep the article itself free. Thanks, Wikidemon ( talk) 03:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I know that you've been interested in these issues in the past. Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator — Ched : ? 04:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jayron32, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Llancillo Church has been removed. It was removed by Cavrdg with the following edit summary '(Update / de-prod)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Cavrdg before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 20:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Clerk courtesy notice: You are a subject of one or more motions being considered by the Arbitration Committee. The motion(s) is/are:
Sincerely, Manning ( talk) 13:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jayron 32.
Do you know anything about adding associated acts sections to an infobox. See here. I have been trying on that article but I can't seem to make it show on the table. Any ideas? Thanks.-- Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 20:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. By the way I just saw this. Are you getting ready to leave?-- Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 23:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Nope. -- Jayron 32 23:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed a message from you earlier today saying I should insert the information that I placed on the talk page of this piece. After inserting that information, I noticed that you placed a 'commenting out until resolved.' The information I had inserted – at your suggestion – contained a footnote to the earliest history of Plymouth that I'm aware of. What's to be resolved exactly? Are you questioning whether Plymouth was named after the place in Devon? Or what precisely is your point? I haven't noticed any disagreement on the talk page concerning the derivation of the name. In fact, I was simply responding to a poster who wondered why it wasn't included in the first place. MarmadukePercy ( talk) 03:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Jayron32
Your attention is brought to the text of a motion passed by the Arbitration Committee on 11 October 2009.
For the Arbitration Committee, Manning ( talk) 16:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
This edit must certainly be Jayron32's most fatalistic edit of his career and I'll tell you why. For starters [4], I have used solely Wikipedia and MIT OCW and MCAT prepbooks to prepare for the MCAT which I'll be taking on the 30th of January. I plug Wikipedia all the time to people and tell them that the math/science articles have fewer errata than most every one of my purchased study materials; and, making an edit that explains a concept in slightly better wording is the most awesome way to learn! I was visiting (i.e. getting lured into chatterboxing or following links to the usual gossip) at Caspian blue's talk page where I just faintly recalled that Jayron32 was a positive user. I went back and hunted the edit, which was serendipitously an MCAT Fluids question that has became one of my strongest subjects of Physics. This story will make Jayron32's day when he learns that I pwned a somewhat-cocky, egocentric "gunner" who needed a lesson in humility (and kepting begging and wouldn't let it go) and it's that good feeling of why we're all Wikipedians! We're the ones who "retreat" from the real world and actually do something we think is important, and look down upon people who are uncaring, ingenuine "successful" people. Here is me deheading (he put his neck under the guillotine and hoisted the blade so it's his fault, a little bit mine) the alpha-male hippo at the hangout waters of most premed over-achievers. I think everyone here (except those who overlap at Wikipedia and SDN) can share in mine and Jayron32's (and of course EVERYONE at the ref desk and math/science articles and the creep & cruft and OR fighters! For the Win!) success story, because Wikipedia is working. I have good judgment [5] and I'm not defending Jayron32's actions, but I'm firmly defending his positive intentions. He's truly one of your site's best and one you can't afford to let be lost to discouragement. You can't simply overlook what he did and not impose scorn, but why hasn't someone else jumped in before me to humorously attempt and overturn the good folks at ArbCom (who have put in a lot of work, and I apologize that my argument soundly trounces yours and will make Jayron32 feel the way he should feel, if his heart was in the right place in his seemingly misunderstood actions).
I was going to ramble; but, if anyone is more interested in these uploaded images [6] [7] [8] which I had planned to incorporate into this essay--I got overambitious and was going to copy/paste every link from that last triplet of urls which were planned to elaborately invite my kind, generous attorney-friend into Wikiproject Law who has respectfully declined in advance due to a lack of time--then email me if you enjoy (mainly talking to Jayron32 here because I don't expect my life to be that interesting, it's mostly boring) hearing the most fascinating tale about my friend and me who if I can't get Thomas to join, maybe I can get my friend to! 윤리윤리윤리 ( talk) 08:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for helping out the Jess Miller (Wisconsin politician) article- I saw the mistake while doing the article- RFD ( talk) 20:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
This got me worried for a minute until you edited it a minute later... Until It Sleeps Talk • Contribs 05:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm leaving Wikipedia forever and I just wanted to say goodbye to a fellow editor who I wish all the best for in their future pursuits on this encyclopedia.-- Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 05:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Apologies if I'm digging at old wounds, but I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Revisiting Milomedes. – Luna Santin ( talk) 08:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello: You locked The Game (US TV series). It was per pink's request until consensus could be reached on info in the article. Yet they are editing the article. The contentious info wasnot agreed upon, yet it is back to their edit. This is unfair. This is why I feel pink had the article locked so just she could edit it. On other disputed aticles changes must first be posted on the talk page, then once all agree, the info is added to the article. Why isnt this the case for TG? 70.108.77.162 ( talk) 12:21, 15 October 2009
My 6Sept & 12 Sep to make 3 colums by changing {div col|cols=2}/{Div col end} to {div col|cols=3}/ {Div col end} was repeatedly reverted. They said I was inferior and using an inferior brower. They reverted to this . Yet on 12 Oct pink edited to this; only to undue it. This too is disputed/contentious, so I thought it too should be agreed upon first on the talk page, then when all agree it is added to the article. 70.108.77.162 ( talk) 13:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Never attemped? Did you look at the talk page. I attempted time and time again. I even posted to noticeboard and they approved the source, yet still pink/wild didnt like it and still reverted. What edits did I make that were not understood? 70.108.77.162 ( talk) 02:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.129.179 ( talk)
I replied in Wikipedia:An#Edit filter permission Chzz ► 14:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI - It appears that eithr you have been editing the Raleigh, North Carolina while logged out, or someone else has been using your name in their edit summary. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/ contrib 04:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The correct Census department Numbers for Raleigh Metro was there, there is no numbers for Urban yet: see Raleigh, North Carolina (talk page) These are census Number that was in the Metro, Would you kindly unprotect the Raleigh NC and allow the right Metro Numbers to be put in, they are the most resent Census Numbers from 2008 1,088,765 Raleigh-Cary Metropolitan Statistical Area. I did what you ask me to, If you have access to the census department numbers, and can fix this, please do. --Jayron32 (Raleigh talk page). AgnosticPreachersKid continue to put in the Combined Statistical Area numbers in the Metro spot which is wrong. I have no problem asking for re-protection once the right numbers are in place. Also I only used your name in editing to show your approval of me putting the right information Table of United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas in Raleigh Metro Slot as per Raleigh, North Carolina (talk page} Thank You 67.197.178.141 ( talk) 06:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I've quoted you in this context (favourably, I think, since I say I agree with you) and thought you should be aware of it. Feel free to comment or not, favourably or unfavourably, as the spirit moves you. Accounting4Taste: talk 22:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
This appears to be from a set of abused IPs (spambots... almost certainly OPs/zombies) I blocked yesterday. Any user on them is almost certainly unrelated. That said, I'm unhappy to see anyone getting caught in the blocks... I'll investigate more. — Mike. lifeguard | @en.wb 21:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
John Adams ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor has begun to question the citations and referencing of the article, with a discussion initiated at Talk:John Adams#Sources. RossF18 ( talk · contribs) initially added a {{ Ref-improve}} tag to the article, which I removed with the edit summary questioning whether he meant the lead section and asking for inline {{ fact}} tags. He later responded, going a little overboard in my opinion with 26 tags. So, unfortunately things got off on the wrong foot. I saw your name in the list of people willing to do peer review, and am asking if you would review the article. I haven't asked for this before and I am not sure if this can be done informally or if I need to go through the process of adding the PR tag to the talk page, set up a subpage and so on first. Thank you for your time – Sswonk ( talk) 19:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
NiceHotShower ( talk · contribs), an editor you blocked back in March, is asking for an unblock. Given that he was blocked for usurping admin powers, I thought I should let you weigh in before going further. Blueboy 96 21:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
User:SCGamecocks2121 has been editing South Carolina Gamecocks. Is this a conflict of interest?-- NiceHotShower ( talk) 00:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- FASTILYsock (TALK) 05:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, you just declined to speedy delete the article Damian Nabot. I hope you realize that in doing so you give a premium to people who only use Wikipedia for blatant self promotion and violate Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam using sockpuppets (see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Damiannabot). I think it should be deleted to show that such behaviour is not appreciated. If anyone thinks that this person is notable, they can start a new version. Kind regards. - DonCalo ( talk) 19:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your dedication to the wiki community: it's exemplary.
My question, as the author of the midnight radio disambiguation page, is at what point does a band page stray from informational to self-promotional? I'd like to know if there is a bright-line which makes it clear.
Again, thanks for your time and oversight/edits. I look forward to your insight on this matter. Be very well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somepocho ( talk • contribs) 22:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello:
I'm a little confused as to why this page was deleted as it was a work in progress and the other administrator had moved this page into a sandbox but now I cannot access that sandbox pae
to reconstruct the page. In addition to myself starting the page various members of the music community in Los Angeles were going to contribute informtaion to it that would not be
COI related. Further the band is significant in that it is one of the first rock bands in the world to feature an Indian Dalit Untouchable singer.Please let me know how best to proceed. I am dyslexic and that reflected a ton of work that went down the drain.
Dalitdiva (
talk)
23:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
You were definite in registering a Keep the last time the BLP of Ray Joseph Cormier had an Afd tag placed on it. This is the 3rd time the same editor has nominated it for deletion. Is this having an NPOV? Being the subject of it, there is not much I can do except rely on the good faith of others, patiently waiting for someone to have an interest in improving it. Except for the ´Early Life and Conversion´ section Steve Smith improved, I tend to agree all the rest, as it is, it not that notable, being a rush job as detailed in the article talk. There is much room for improvement that can be drawn from the numerous newspaper references. Peace DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 14:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
User_talk:J_Milburn#AfD_nomination_of_Ray_Joseph_Cormier
User_talk:Earl_Andrew#AfD_nomination_of_Ray_Joseph_Cormier
I have recused myself from making any more comments on the Afd discussion, but it is exasperating to see editors voting delete and ignoring Wikipedia´s fundamental requirement of numerous, independent, reliable newspaper sources to determine Notability. By that Wikipedia standard, there is no question of Notability of the subject. The reasons they openly give is they don´t like the subject, in other words.
Comparing the numerous newspaper reports to getting coverage in small town pie baking contests is absurd. They are all from the major dailies of Canada´s major cities spread over many years. To judge the character of the subject by the newspaper headings listed here Talk:Ray_Joseph_Cormier#Improving_the_Article without knowing the content is also superficial reasoning.
It is significant in understanding the subject, to notice The Ottawa Citizen, the major daily in Canada´s Capital, changed their choice of header from ´Preacher Arrested on Mall´ to ´Second Police Warning for God´s Emissary´ one week later. Most would not have noticed that.
I could go on, but you get the point. Again, I appreciate your support. Peace DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 02:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know I put a response down. Writing article about Pugs and Nintendo doesn't necessitate the creation of an account. Reporting someone who is trying to create the appearance of consensus via socks, on the other hand, does. FluffyPug ( talk) 04:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Wurdalak. 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) 05:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
You recently compiled and listed a case at sockpuppet investigations. A checkuser or clerk has asked that you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the sockpuppet investigations page. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed in a timely manner. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 05:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I decline, as politely as I can, to name any other accounts that I have or have had in the past. To re-assure you I can state that I have never, under any account or IP, been blocked, banned, subject to any restrictions. I've only ever had one templated warning, but that was in error and was sorted out amicably with the twinkle user who placed it. Some more re-assurance - I don't ever use alt accounts for abusive purposes; there's no vote stacking or fake consensus building. Does that help?
Remember Civility (
talk)
15:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. It's less intriguing than it seems. Durova 355 21:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there Jayron32. I want to inform you that you were unwittingly part of an experiment of newbie treatment in which I participated under a different name. The purpose of WP:NEWT is to determine how experienced users would be treated if they were new users and created sub-standard but viable articles. You can find a recollection of my experience at WP:NEWT#SoWhy's experience in case you are interested. Last but not least I want to apologize for having used your time in this way, diverting it from real work on the encyclopedia. If I can offer my time and services for anything you need in return, feel free to ask at any time. Regards So Why 08:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I want to thank you for standing firm on the principle of WP:N. In the previous AfD section, I fully understood you were not supporting me in registering a keep. You were supporting the foundation on which Wikipedia´s credibility is built, WP:N In my view, with this decision, Wikipedia has now thrown that out the window.
My reasons for thinking this are here:
User_talk:Hobit#Ray_Joseph_Cormier_-_Deleted
I have nominated List of New England Patriots seasons for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Cheetah (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jayron32. Thank you for noticing my editing of the Nair page. May be I am a novice. But I believe in Wikipedia. I think that Wikipedia should promote truth and harmony. It should not have biased polemic views. What Anandks007 is adding to the Nair page under the subhead Religion is not having authentic reference value. The additions by Anandks007 will create disaffection among the Hindu Nairs and the Christian community as also Hindu-Muslim disharmony. The text has no historical value also. So why You are reorting against me for editing the polemic passages instead of complaining against the fanatic writings of Anandks007. I have not threatened him or any other contributor in the talk page. I only told that such polemic writing needs reporting. But interestingly, I am being accused. If you want Wikipedia to be a really truthful, cooperative affair, promote the people who want to uphold truth.
Incidentally I have noticed another totally wrong moval: Mannathu Padmanabhan to Mannathu Padmanabhan Nair which is totally incorrect. You may ridicule me for adhering to truth. But should I not point out this blatant mistake? Again this was done by Anandks007. The original name of the Nair leader who founded Nair Service Society was Mannathu Padmanabha Pillai, which he shortened to Mannathu Padmanabhan as a model for social reform to reduce the caste feelings. The official name is Mannathu Padmanabhan. This contributor, again Anandks007 moved the original and hundred percent correct title Mannathu Padmanabhan to Mannathu Padmanabhan Nair, a name which never existed, to suit his parochial, biased views. I seek your advice to rectify this mistake. Please tell me what I should I do if I see incorrect statements. som123 —Preceding undated comment added 10:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC).
I just happened across the request on
WP:HELP from a new user
User:LouieLouieohoh who wanted to have the autoconfirmed waiting period waived. He/she didn't give a reason, but you did grant the request. I have nothing involved this except curiosity. Do you know something about the user that would suggest waiving the waiting time is appropriate? It just seemed rather whimsical when I assumed the waiting period is there for a reason. Thanks
Bielle (
talk)
02:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey ... that's a good question ... why did you ... was I nice, cordual, to the point?
Did you find me here: [
Louie (the Guy)
LouieLouieohoh (
talk)
03:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Jason,
Thanks for your quick response. I have been updating the Teri DeSario article. Please review
A Call to Us All. It is linked from the
Discography section. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
LouieLouieohoh (
talk)
03:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Jason ... I'll work on it tonight ... day job you know.
LouieLouieohoh (
talk)
11:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jayron32. This article has been followed for more than a year by a dynamic IP who likes to remove criticism from the article, including any suggestion that the group is right-wing. It may be reasonable to consider that 87.114.129.140 ( talk · contribs) is this same IP, for which as much as 3 months semi-protection was enacted in the past. The article was at WP:COIN back in 2008 when it first came to my attention. If you think the IP is working in good faith, another trip to WP:COIN may be needed to try to get the IP to pay attention to our policies. If (as I suggest) he is not, then another spell of semi-protection could be justified. If he were a registered editor, a block for long-term edit-warring might be considered. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. After my posting at ANI, you protected the article to deal with the edit-warring anon. May I ask you to reconsider? If you take a look at the anon's activities, you'll find that he's the only one pushing for those change and that he's pretty much a WP:SPA. Besides, since I came to ANIU rather than continue reverting, you of course ended up protecting WP:The Wrong Version. Thanks for your time! -- Ramdrake ( talk) 21:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
As you participated in the recent
Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two
requests for comment that relate to the use of
SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the
SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (
talk)
08:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Articles on US Route 40 and US Route 70 are mixed up. The article on Route 40 actually describes Route 70 and the article about Route 70 ACTUALLY describes Route 40. (check any road atlas) UNLESS, of course, the two road atlases I checked have them interposed--and what are tha chances of that? 69.198.165.217 ( talk) 01:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
r. mansfild 69.198.165.217 ( talk) 01:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you salt it and then close the DRV? Per your comments, that seems to be the best course of action here, and I would have no objections to that. Cirt ( talk) 06:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for the note on my talkpage, all of which I agree with. I don't usually bother to merge if I put the tag on an article, I wait and see if somebody else wants to comment or merge. I left a note on the talkpage, too. If it does become contentious I'll take it to AfD. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 09:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
...but thanks for your recent contributions to WP:ANI, which I found quite valuable. If there were a dramaboard award, you'd be getting one :) Skomorokh, barbarian 12:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Please tell me what you want in the article. There is nothing to merge, as the percentages are easily calculable from the total. It it irrelevant to note that Togo happens to have .61% of the total population, and one can easily find that with the numbers given. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African Union member states by population closed as merge and redirect, which was also the vote Koavf made without further comment. If you are referring to the comment SmokeyJoe made, I have corrected the sorting in List of African Union member states and I apologize for missing it. Reywas92 Talk 23:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey buddy, noticed that you were the one to tag Australian 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup Bid with {{ refimprove}}. I made some improvements and brushed it up, then removed the tag, but thought I'd check with you to sign off on it. Would you mind taking a look? Relevant diff. Thanks! Glass Cobra 15:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The Reference Desk Barnstar | ||
Thanks for answering my To Catch A Predator question on the Humanities Reference desk! -- Ye Olde Luke ( talk) 19:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC) |
Hi, are you going to be working on this list, which is at FLRC, anytime soon? I'm considering delisting it, but if you think you'll get time in the next few days to improve it, I'll leave it open. Cheers, Dabomb87 ( talk) 14:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey, you didn't say why you declined produde94's request to not be blocked. You just said no. You acted like you are god and you rule the wikipedia world. you and many other administrators abuse your power. Btw, I am produde94, dannydavis94, FREEDOM94, and others
Hey, you didn't say why you declined produde94's request to not be blocked. You just said no. You acted like you are god and you rule the wikipedia world. you and many other administrators abuse your power. Btw, I am produde94, dannydavis94, FREEDOM94, and others Dannydavis95 ( talk) 03:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, An Aid to Neuro-ophthalmology, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Aid to Neuro-ophthalmology. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Singularity42 ( talk) 05:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
MacOfJesus ( talk) 17:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jayron32. Milkbaba ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have declined to unblock, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, — C.Fred ( talk) 06:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Expanding further: the initial concerns I had with this editor were the repeated copyright infringements. Please see my second-chance offer at the bottom, which he completed successfully. As it's your block, even though many of the warnings were mine, I want you to review it before I go any further. Also, while technically this request goes to Materialscientist as the blocking admin, I've included you in the request because you're the most recent decliner of an unblock. IMO, Milkbaba is making a good-faith effort to comply with the rules and be civil. However, I have no objection if the unblock includes a zero-tolerance condition barring futher personal attacks or copyvios. — C.Fred ( talk) 06:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I received a message about a page that I was 'involved in writing' but I have never heard of this person. Is this just a mistake? -- Abn3566 ( talk) 20:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, just a note that when I started typing the thread hadn't been archived, I certainly wouldn't have bothered if it was. -- Banjeboi 19:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Slrubenstein
I agree with dixie. This is completely inappropriate behaviour for an admin to behave like that in a discussion.-- Crossmr ( talk) 05:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
[9] well played... -- BozMo talk 21:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.
It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew talk at 03:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I see that you've reverted my inclusion of several prominent members of the Family and initiated a discussion of this issue here and here. You may not be aware of widespread media coverage about the Family -- I suggest you begin with these sources:
The legislator that introduced the bill [imposing the death penalty on Ugandan homosexuals], a guy named David Bahati, is a member of the Family, appears to be a core member of the Family, he organizes their Ugandan National Prayer Breakfasts, and oversees an African student leadership program.
David Bahati, the Ugandan MP who introduced the legislation, is reported to be a member of The Family, The Children of God, The Family International, The Fellowship.
A list of prominent members of the Family listed in WP:CITE sources available at The Fellowship (Christian organization)#List of prominent Family members. Also see Category talk:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship#Rationale for category. I do not wish to engage in revert-warring with you or other editors, so I will wait a day or so for your response before I add these facts back to the appropriate pages, which I believe have been deleted in error. Zerschmettert die Schändliche ( talk) 06:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, I strongly object to your tendentious wording in your proposal to delete Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship. This is a valid category, not "created as part of a spree of questionable BLP-violating categorization of politicians." Please remove these unfair and inappropriate mischaracterizations. Zerschmettert die Schändliche ( talk) 06:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
First, I'll say that I agree with your logic that despite the massive canvassing, a case could be made he was accidentally baited to it this time. I am going to reserve the right to look over the even more expansive list of users contacted, I'm afraid.
However, there are a lot of editors that have put in several full evenings of work trying to control him, after 3, 4, 5 ANIs, countless talk page warnings, countless talk page messages, a full SPI with very specific restrictions given and agreed to every term of them as a condition for an unblock. Being oblivious to policy isn't an endless means of avoiding sanctions when the pattern of continued disruptive actions has been endless... so, how far would the user need to go and push things even further? How much precedent is there for this much forgiveness for a user who has been perpetually lying about other users, hounding any editor even remotely suggesting he look over the situation again, etc etc etc.? I just want it to end. If by some miracle there's absolutely no further concerns, I'll gladly give you credit for deity-level evaluation of 'when the scales tip', so to speak, but this degree of disruption has been very demoralizing. Hopefully I'll learn something great from this in the end, but I will warn you... if I crack my head open on my desk from further bashing and need stitches, I might inquire about where to send the bill :) ...Fantastic restraint, truly, and though my view of the case as a whole is no different, it's having me turn my brain over on a different angle at some things. Thanks. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
You were involved in a discussion regarding the use of copyrighted architectural designs on Wikipedia pages and I'm trying to find community consensus on a gray area. If you can, please let me know at what point you feel these images should be replaced here. Thank you so much! DR04 ( talk) 19:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:MikeBloomfield.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Zoo Fari 06:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
He's back, as you can see in his contribution log. Blockworthy? He may have just waited for the investigation to die. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 01:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
You know who is back from his block and doing the same things as before, I already requested it get blocked at AIV yet again. Momo san Gespräch 05:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
-- Jayron 32 05:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Would you like to take a look here? I'm concerned because this username is clearly similar to Barack Obama. Interestingly enough, their debut was to edit Poverty and add the "African-American" race ( Obama's race) as a see-also.-- Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 09:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Sky Attacker
the legend reborn... is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Xmas,
Eid,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hannukah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.
-- Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 02:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am trying to create a page for ioBridge which is a company that creates web enabled IO control. But you deleted the page. Could you please tell me what do I need to do/write to get your approval? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noelportugal ( talk • contribs) 05:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
(See WT:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout#2010 Dramaout?) -- ___A. di M. 12:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
HectorMayhem is a collegue of mine, we attended grad school at Xavier University together. The page that we were both editing at the same time contained information that each of us added individually. HectorMayhem created the page, let me know that it was being formed, and I added the information that I was aware of. We have a legitimate controbution to make and everything on the page was accurate. We were given almost no time to finish the page and you immediately accused my friend of being me for some reason and blocked his account.
Is this the way that Wikipedia is being run now? By administrators who use personal feelings to decide whether a page is legit or whether a person is who he says he is? I mean, the page on Brian Clark had more information, was written more eloquently and with fewer grammatical, typographical, and structural errors, and was about a more noteworthy person than several articles that have stayed on the site, without wantan molestation of their creators.
So, I first request that you reactivate my colleague's account, and I also request that you review the page "Brian Clark (American Writer & Academic) 1987-" and reconsider the previous decision to delete it.
Clarkadrummage ( talk) 22:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I apologize if I offended you at all. That was not my intent. I simply meant to say that if the policy of this website is going to be to delete posts withing seconds of their creation and then block users based on incorrect information, there will be very little content added. The fact that the page that we were attempting to make did not even get a chance and that Hector was blocked makes it impossible for anyone to find out who the person that we were writing the page for is. For example, if someone saw his band play, or read a journal article by him, he would not be able to find Brian Clark on Wikipedia. On the other hand, if I look up George Washington, I can find him anywhere. It seems to me that it follows that minor, but still significant, figures have more of a place on a user content site like this one than major ones. If that's not the point of the site, that's fine, I clearly did not understand that and Hector and I screwed up.
Again, I wasn't trying to be, only to inform you of the mistake that you made, and why I thought that the treatment of our page was unfair. Although I thought that Hector was blocked because of the misinformation and that our page was deleted based on this same misinformation, you have made it clear that it was an objective decision, so my bad for accusing you or any other Admin of bias.
Finally, thanks for the information, but I doubt I(or many other new users) will be trying to create or edit any pages on this site, as I do not have the time or patience to read all of the rules.
Clarkadrummage ( talk) 20:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot ( talk) 04:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Now clearer, I hope. Jheald ( talk) 22:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
You may want to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somerset Spectator (2nd nomination) since you participated in the previous AfD. - Eastmain ( talk) 00:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
MLauba ( talk) 01:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Watch those small tags, mister! Matt Deres ( talk) 22:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Please see appreciation msg in my talk page. Thanks -- Kgwu24 ( talk) 22:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)KG
66.168.211.37 has vandalized two pages so far (one ALOT), but have been reverted. The user is a suspected sockpuppet of ever annoying indef blocked user Dingbat2007, a known and CONSTANTLY repeating vandal in the radio and TV station world. Could you block this new IP of Dingbat2007 before he causes anymore problems please? Thanks... NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Jayron. Please can you forward me the email sent to you by ottava so that I can review it as to whether talk page and email access removal was neccessary. In addition, by adding talk page and email restriction, you inadvertantly reset the block which will need correcting. Many thanks. Seddon talk| WikimediaUK 03:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian Leadership. The category is similar to Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship which you recently commented on. -- Kevinkor2 ( talk) 09:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 20:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Caspian blue is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Xmas,
Eid,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hannukah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.
-- Caspian blue 22:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I see that you looked over the abovelinked SPI case. I was wondering if you considered the evidence between Drawn Some and the other two accounts strong enough to conclusively link them together? If so, I have a bit of retagging to do :) NW ( Talk) 03:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
If either of you learn more ping me will ya, so I can take another look. Thanks. ++ Lar: t/ c 01:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
My profs are away for the holidays ... but my curiosity isn't. And I do ask my profs -- I often ask on the RD when all my other resources are asleep or flooded with 50 other students (in the same accelerated class) asking questions. John Riemann Soong ( talk) 05:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for helping on Adam Smith University. Even more importantly, I really appreciate the belly laugh that your edit comment gave me ("I have a semi pp. And yes, it is small") Regards, TallMagic ( talk) 23:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
While I'd be happy to be "sent to the article talk page to discuss the matter civily [sic]", I'd prefer you not use "Prodego is hearby [sic] sent to bed without dinner" as your closing summary. That implies that I did something wrong, which I don't believe is the case, if I had thought it were wrong, I would not have done it (or would have undone it). I also don't believe the thread shows consensus that I acted improperly, although there is certainly a point of view that I have. Prodego talk 01:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Well what I meant there was... I'll avoid commenting as much as I can. :). Prodego talk 01:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
Thank you for your kind words on my talk. This event is rather saddening. So many parties to this were absolutely doing the right thing to the best of their knowledge and ability, and yet things still went awry... I don't know how to easily recover from this mess, but trying our best, and apologizing when it didn't work, is the best tool we've got. I'm glad you're here. Thanks. ++ Lar: t/ c 14:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC) |
Also, I want to apologise again to you for any offense I may have given in undoing the close. Undoing it seemed the thing to do at the time but I'm not sure there's been a lot of forward progress since then. ++ Lar: t/ c 14:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Climate Change and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, and please comment at the arbitration case or on my talk page- I'm notifying a large batch of editors. tedder ( talk) 02:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The Distinguished Hive Mind Member Barnstar | ||
Congratulations on earning a distinguished spot on Hive Mind, you must be doing something right! Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC) |
I have made a SPI, but it doesn't show on the main page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Arab_Cowboy#Evidence_submitted_by_User:Supreme_Deliciousness -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 14:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
At WT:CUP#New Hampshire - I did not notice until now that we both had the same flag for the WikiCup. -- Dylan 620 ( contribs, logs) 00:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Jayron. Just to let you know, I've unprotected Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as I've placed it under a 1RR restriction under the new terms of the community climate change probation. I hope this is okay with you, but if not feel free to reprotect. Take care, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to unblock, with a warning. See this little exchange. In particular, the IP's three-day block -- which is so long as to appear punitive; why not 12 hours? -- coincides with my three-day freeze of Chilean people; I'd like the belligerents (in what seems to me a particularly silly little dispute) to use this time to find common ground. -- Hoary ( talk) 05:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Jayron- I was not using my own definition of city when I made that edit to Reims; and I was, as you say, being careful. I assure you from long education and experience that ville does in fact mean city in French--though it can also refer to what in many English-speakers would call a town--and cité is no longer used to mean city. You can look up both words in a French dictionary to see how they are used. But all that is beside the point: In English, Reims is called a city, just like Paris is. If you took anyone who grew up speaking English and dropped them in Reims, they would call it a city, just like they would Concord and Boston. Would you please revert your revert? Thanks. Eric talk 15:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I am at work behind a shared firewall. Stop messing about and blocking my office. I have proven that I am not the sockpuppet you are looking for. Simon-in-sagamihara ( talk) 04:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey why did you delete Andrew Hornstra's page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.175.225 ( talk) 21:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
wtf why did you delet the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luftwaffe161 ( talk • contribs) 06:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this diff [10] which you added to my RfC, I have continued to see you seek out confrontation and use incivility with editors whose politics you disagree. This is very inappropriate behavior Jayron, and I hope that you will recognize the error in your ways and take corrective action. Intolerance is a big problem here on Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 23:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Re Troyfromaust - User:Watchover. Look at the history of the only article he significantly edited. It was an omission on my part - I was tired when I did the block and forgot to note the name in the block reason. (If you look on Stravin's and Watchover's talk, and at the two SPIs under Stravin, you'll see this gets rather complicated very quickly.) Orderinchaos 06:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I notice that you are offering adoption, and that I am seeking a mentor! I've been registered here for about 4 years, but I still don't really understand a lot of the ins and outs of everything that goes on around Wikipedia. A lot of policies (like just about everything to do with deletion) just go right over my head and also are terrifying. I sort of want to start actually contributing rather than just gnoming around and fixing little things, too, but I have no idea where to start! Mostly I'm looking for someone that I can bounce questions off of, that can show me the ropes better than I know 'em now. Lemme know if you're willing to take on such a burden! :3 Audiosmurf ♪/ ♫ 00:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Please investigate the user named GarnetAndBlack and take appropriate action. He/she/their constant deletion of sourced material on articles related to the University of South Carolina without any discussion or consensus makes some of us wonder if he/she/them are employees of the University, especially since the University has a student publication named Garnet & Black. In particular, GarnetAndBlack has deleted recent contributions to the South Carolina Gamecocks football article by claiming NPOV and/or edit warring. However, this same user makes edits to Clemson (rival school) articles that could be NPOV and then blasts any user for deleting his/her/their edits. This is hypocritical! Attempts to make the University related articles more realistic and reduce the overly positive slant have met with constant deletion/reverting. When attempts are made to replace the material, GarnetAndBlack threatens a block based on edit warring. This is abusive! From a review of this user's contributions, it is obvious that this user is on Wikipedia solely to protect these articles. Anything negative (even when it is well sourced) gets deleted, so no new content (unless it's glowing praise of the subject) gets in. I noticed your user name in a recent dispute with this user and hope you can deal with this user appropriately. 71.75.202.139 ( talk) 04:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello, by standing on the fifth pillar I have removed the premature archiving of the ANI topic regarding Proofreader77. The process is not finished, and it needs to finish. A resolution of is needed, and its needed even if I do not like the outcome. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 04:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for your mediation over at Balkans. I'm trying to resolve this dispute over maps with User:Kostja and I think your involvement might help. Basically, I think the Stanford map, though an outlier, should be included in Congress of Berlin, Treaty of San Stefano, and Eastern Rumelia. To placate Kostja, I have proposed to balance it with the Ravenstein map, but he won't hear of it. As long as it is made clear in the map's caption why it's included in the article, and as long as it is balanced by other maps, I don't think there should be a problem. Athenean ( talk) 21:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
...but the Sepulveda Pass, possibly the main deterrent to visiting the Skirball Cultural Center, an otherwise admirable venue for all sorts of events and a nice museum. It's not only quite possible but ever so likely to visit the Skirball complex from the southern approach, near Los Angeles proper and an international airport with many outstanding sites of cultural significance between. Your response seemed rather POV of the Valley booster-ish sort. But perhaps I only noticed because I'm of Westside origin myself. -- Cheers, Deborahjay ( talk) 11:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not terribly familiar with Sheynhertz-Unbayg's contribution history, although Wikipedia:SU appears to detail some of his typical "tells". Checkuser evidence shows that it is quite Possible that Longitudo is S-U, but I'm not able to confirm any connection. I've got no opinion on the unblock, but I would recommend if a IPBE is given, that one of both of you keep a close eye on the account just in case. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 20:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, I was wondering if you would take a look at the Barack Obama talk page. An editor decided he didn't like the discussion and collapsed the thread. The discussion began today, and there may other editors out there who will see it and want to make contribs as well. Thanks, Malke 2010 23:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;