User talk:Jayron32

Welcome to Jayron32's talk page. Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A descriptive header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions. This is me in my bathrobe

Wake County, North Carolina (II)

Yeah, so I guess the Wake County Historical Society never checks their e-mail or else given their organization name, they're stuck somewhere in history and still use the Pony Express. ;-) They never responded about my inquiry for historical information that I mentioned to you a few weeks ago. I'm going to head over to the Georgetown library or some other library this week and ask about that book exchange program you mentioned. I decided to work on the Raleigh history section until then. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Jayron

Hello Jayron,

I am editing an article of MyTino and adding more references to it. Please give me some time.

Thanks for you understanding.

Aaron

Oh, surely you'll understand!

Please forgive me for all this; I am nearly in tears with stress. Let me explain myself in point form; that might make it more intelligible:

• I saw in the AIV that he reported a user for being a sockpuppet, and provided an example (the page is on my watchlist).
• I went to him, and explained that I didn't understand why it made the user a sock.
• He explained, but I still didn't get it. This went on for some time.
• He finally got angry, and told me to go away.
• It's my own fault, but I have an obsessive desire for the last word, and this occured, but he removed the comment.
• I felt offended by this, since I tried to be polite, and counter-attacked by reporting him to AIV.
• Another user removed that, and directed me to the right place to report supposed personal attacks.
• This whole ordeal went as far as you know it, and I explained myself again. He removed it again.
• You warned me about where this could head, and now I've come to you.

Please understand that I didn't mean to harass AgnosticPreachersKid; I've been through this before, and have tried to learn from my past experiences. I just wanted to explain myself, so I didn't look like I had no basis for my original comments. He might listen to you; please go to his talkpage and deliver this message to him, for I nearly stroked out with anger and distress (and the melodrama is in fact accurate). It would make me feel a lot happier and a lot more relaxed if you did. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If that's the best thing that can be done, well, O.K. And I'm sorry if the usersubpage was inappropriate; I meant for it to look at all my past bad situations in a lighter mood. Thank you for your consolation; I can't guaruntee it'll always be so, but for now you've earned my respect as a Wikipedian. Thank you. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a wonderful idea. One more thanks to you, and let's close this chapter at that! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting the autoblock

--Peter cohen (talk) 05:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No problemo! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He's still at it.

Oh Jayron, please put an end to this. User:AgnosticPreachersKid won't let go, and has said I'm a sockpuppet! I don't know if you were in on that or not, but I swear to you, as God is my witness, I am not! I have never had an account other than that of "User:Wilhelmina Will", and the IP address I had before I registered, which I since have not used. I said I would leave him alone, and thus have kept true to my word, please get him to leave me alone! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankenstein says, "Yeah Jayron, Wilhilmenia has 'really' left me alone" AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I said if you would leave me alone as well. Which you have not done. And I said I wouldn't speak to you on your usertalkpage. Unless you're the sockpuppet here, this ain't your usertalkpage. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(Jayron, I'll stop posting after this so as not to spill over this discussion on your page) You added my name before I posted that sock case. If you want to talk about this, do it on the sock case page, not here. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

To Wilhelminia: Please don't litter my talk page with this drivel. I am sorry to get rude at this point, but this is really getting bothersome. Quite frankly, I had my suspicions of your sockpuppetry based on some very confusing edits you and several IPs made in short order. This goes beyond coincidence... Really, you doth protest too much, methinks... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Soccermeko again

He's back, now attempting to delete the article we won't let him edit.Kww (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. He's keeping my sockhammer busy. Just keep me notified when he comes back... I will block his socks again. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Bft

That's teamwork - I started by posting the unblock template then went to unblock, whereas you'd unblocked and were on your way to post the template. I guess we crossed somewhere in the middle. _GB^T/C 18:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Great work man. I noticed that too! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Mooch ass grassy ass! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA and Gni again

Gni has relaunched his contentious edit warring and spamming for CAMERA. I did try to remind him of the advice from admins to step away, to no avail. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The dif you provided is on the talk page of the article, and actually looks like he's trying to work it out. Now, don't we WANT editors to use talk pages to discuss problems? He looks like, in this one case, he is doing what he is supposed to, which is to achieve consenus and compromise on talk pages... Unless you have additional evidence that he is edit warring (and, for example, you AREN'T) then please provide those difs... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, probably not edit warring per se, but more attempts at putting in the organizations spin with unreliable sources and false claims of consensus and compromise. I suppose I was so flabbergasted with seeing him come roaring back with the spin doctoring even with the COIN thing happening an the advice to stay away from the article that it seemed like a declaration of war. I'm better now. thanks. Good night. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Majority Muslim countries issue

Hi there I was editing the page Majority Muslim countries by editing it with correct approximate percentages of the countries from recent census's as the sources, but after the edits I have made to the article I was told by the user 'Angelo De La Paz' that I have violated and has warned me that I will be blocked from editing but he has no right to tell me that - I have not violated and he is not an Admin to decide this, please view this issue please, Thankyou Admin! Moshino31 (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Angelo De La Paz to Moshino31: 20 March 2008

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Majority Muslim countries, you will be blocked from editing. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Really? I need to hear your opinions and weigh this article: Majority Muslim countries, crated byMoshino31 who is a Muslim and extreme pro-Islam. I have added some tags on this article because it's lacking many sources, violated NPOV and the neutrality is in dispute...and he's called my revisions as vandalism in my Talk Page. Let's see the different between my revision and his revision here and its talk page so you can see how Mohshin pro-Islam and as you can see in his early version of User Page, he could be a Muslim extremist [1]

Please weigh it as soon as possible. Thank you so much and have a nice day! Angelo De La Paz (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

A Muslim extremist by editing a poxy percentage facts of an article based on Muslim countries - geneius mate! Suddenly Im an extremist! Moshino31 (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes! You did because you was not used all estimates from the source of CIA Factbook only (you didn't added the lower estimates of Muslim percentage in some countries although it is from the same CIA Factbook) and you always choose the highest estimates of Muslim percentage. Here is my evidence [2].

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

- I have just ratified the highest percentages available on the internet, I dont see a problem with that? Moshino31 (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ya! That is no problem with you who is a Muslim and pro-Islam but it's violated NPOV and you are promoting the Muslim strength.Angelo De La Paz (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Keep this crap off of my talk page. If you guys need mediation or help, try WP:RFC or WP:3O or something. I'm not here to solve your childish disputes... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Maynard James Keenan Peer review

Yo, dude. We're going to FA on this. If you can either go over and make some improvements or do a PR or whatev, that'd be great! Lara❤Love 05:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you help. Lara❤Love 17:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You know I'm good for it. I will do what I can... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Al Siebert

An article that you have been involved in editing, Al Siebert, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Siebert. Thank you. B. Wolterding (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 3

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —О бот (т • ц) 21:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Using Explicatives

You threaten to block me because I used the explicative "hell" when I come to your page and you have the F word right on it? Okay then, I have changed it to "heck". --Eckre (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope... I never did such a thing. See your talk page for reply... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it civil for someone to go into someone's sandbox and delete their content? It's odd that if someone goes onto MY sandbox page and deletes MY test content, then I go to their page and tell them to bug off, I GET IN TROUBLE and have you telling me to be civil. Well hell, where on wikipedia CAN I go and test stuff without it being deleted? PLEASE ANSWER! Because I'd really like to know, I had been led to believe (Because I read it here on Wikipedia) that was the single and entire purpose of one's personal sandbox. So please, do tell. --Eckre (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you know that my images have "bad" licensing info? You don't, because they are mine and I took them and I know the history and I know everything about it, and you don't. Others admins have suggested that I put them on my sandbox first, to test things out, good advice, they pointed me to how I can set up my own sandbox, and I did, all was perfect. So instead of shooting first, and never asking any questions later, here's a tip: The next time you're going to delete someone else's work 1. Check if it's on their sandbox, and if it is, it's probably best to leave it alone. Upon every image page, there is a link called "What pages this image links to" or something to that effect, where you can find out where the image is, and if it's on someone's sandbox or not. If it's located is someone's "/user/sandbox/" Please understand they are probably working on it, and the point of the wiki sandbox is to try stuff out, without rebuke. It doesn't have to be perfect, it's not even public. AND/OR 2. Use the discussion tab One of them is located at the top left of every page. If you look up at the top of this page, you will see one. The sandbox is where we are 100% allowed to test things, upload things, and adjust licensing and such later, when we decide what is the correct way to do things. Not everything has to be perfect for publication the second we put it on our own personal sandbox. Thank you for your understanding in this matter. /Discussion. --Eckre (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

for any insults I lofted your way during that process. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I investigated the situation, and it was clear that the BLP issue in that case took precedence. Thanks for the apology, and next time, please do not assume that admins are out to get anyone... It just took me some time to investigate.... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "the BLP issue in that case took precedence". The blocking admin addressed and rejected the claim that the BLP exemption could be properly invoked in this edit, and his argument certainly seems sound to me. Policy says such claims are to be "narrowly construed", after all. (Looking as his contrib list it also appears to be his last word on the subject -- did you follow policy and contact him before lifting the block?) The way you left it it appears to me that 72etc may well conclude that his BLP claim was ultimately accepted. Nor did 72etc respond to what you said here, "...you were blocked for edit warring. You clearly were doing so, and I have seen no assurances that you intend to stop doing so."

I was not around for any of the discussion, and therefor did not rebut any of the false claims. E.g., 72etc claimed that his posting on the BLP noticeboard had not been replied to, helpfully supplying a redlink so that you could not easily check. Here is the actual link,[3] and you can see (and confirm in the edit history that the time stamps are accurate) that that was false. Also see [4] where I explain to him for the umpteenth time why failing to describe what Martin wrote and what Insight wrote clearly enough to see that they are different is a POV-advancing act. It is after all this that he says I "do not use talk". Only 108 edits to that particular article's talk page so far![5]

I really think you got taken in. At the very least you should fill in the reason on the unblock template, which you left blank, with text that makes it clear that the BLP exemption was inapplicable and that that three reverts per article per 24h is an absolute upper limit in all except the narrowest, clearest, completely uncontroversial BLP vios. Andyvphil (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

And speaking of 72etc's expansive view of the powers granted him by BLP, what route would you suggest I pursue to prevent what I undid here? It went undetected for three days or so. I really shouldn't have to watch him for this. Andyvphil (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Still going at it at User talk:Larry E. Jordan

Looks like they aren't giving up on this issue from what I see. Momusufan (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather see him spending time here than wonder what the next sock is doing. Also, the next sock will have more fodder, if we take away all his recourse here. I don't see any reason to protect that page. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:39, 23 Mar 2008 (UTC)

No, the next sock will be blocked immediately. I see no reason to continue to allow him an "outlet" to be disruptive. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

An ongoing discussion on a single talk page doesn't constitute a disruption. They were expressly discussing the reasons for the block, "they" including admins. I don't think this was a good protect. No offense. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:45, 23 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Then unprotect it then. I don't really care... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I'm flattered that you would assume so :) Equazcion •✗/C • 01:56, 23 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Please unprotect User talk:Larry E. Jordan

It was improper for you to protect this Talk page, as you are the blocking administrator; by protecting it, you make it impossible for him to address any issues raised by your block, there is clear conflict of interest in this. I do assume from the above that you will not object to unprotection, but it is better if you do it.--Abd (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of doing so, since he was a disruptive troll and was using his talk page, not to asuage concerns about his disruption, but rather to further disrupt. I, however, will not raise any objection to any other admin unprotecting it. I, however, stand by my decision to do so, and will not undo it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Don't let those cute smiles fool you, these bunnies are dangerous.

Sadly, Former First Lady Nancy Reagan has been abducted by the Easter Bunny's evil cousins, Frank and Billy Ray. But don't let that stop you from having a great Easter! Cheers. The one and only ----> AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

ARGH. My savior died for THAT? Nancy, leave those poor bunnies alone! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Help Needed at BLP noticeboard

Hi, after all the block activity yesterday, the concerning text has been readded today. I know you don't want to get involved, but much of this issue would not have happened, if the BLP noticeboard had provided some timely guidance. So I am asking you, if possible, to get the BLP admins to please respond to the open request on the noticeboard. I am sending this message to admin: B and admin: Jayron32. Thank you for your consideration. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Now, celebrity impersonation by Soccermeko

75.197.18.246 is an address to keep an eye on ... a personal plea from "Nicole Wray" to delete her page, because so many of her fans are complaining about how Wikipedia treats them.Kww (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Impressive job there admin

So, the best thing that came to your mind for Race and intelligence is this? You call it an edit war when a couple of racist editors are trying to add pseudoscientific commentary into the article and truly neutral editors are trying to stop them? Does that mean you support the racists, because protecting an article this bad seems to confuse me greatly? Or does it mean you spent 2 nanoseconds reviewing the commentary of the anti-semitic editors--maybe if you did, could you not have used those impressive admin powers to do some good such as blocking the racists? Thanks a lot for your wonderful assistance to the project. Sigh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The protection of the article has nothing to do with its content. The protection policy does not govern that as adminsitrators we become involved in choosing the better version of an article to protrect. That you call me a supporter of racists is a disgusting personal attack and I demand that you retract it. You will not get "your way" because you try to besmirch my good name simply to get your way. For the record, the article is a piece of shit, and I have no problem saying that it is a piece of shit. However, your disgusting, unprovoked attack on my and my reputation is entirely unacceptable.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude. Just wanted to say, when someone posts non-constructive bashing comments on my talk page I just remove 'em. No point in responding to such people. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:16, 24 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. And let me apologize for implying that you were a racist. Please please please understand that I am extremely sensitive to anti-Semitism that is prevalent in two or three of the editors to Race and intelligence. Many of my family members are no longer enjoying the laughs of the grand children and great grandchildren because of the Holocaust, because someone didn't stand up to Hitler when he was just a ranting fool. I want everyone to do as I would do, push them down and crush them before their foolish rants kill people. Finally, I like your style. The article is not just a piece of shit, it is a stinking pile of rotting shit. And a couple of the editors there need to have their asses handed to them. Anyways, I do apologize, and I hope we're good. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hierarchy

I'm just trying to understand. Is there a link or reference that will explain how the ship is run here? -- Preceding unsigned comment add to 03:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:CONSENSUS. That's the best place to start. For a more general view, try WP:5P. For a humorous view, perhaps WP:CABAL. Hope that helps! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I was inspired by your diagram

This is how I roll, baby!

So I created my own. This is my edit layout for the last four years. It's hot. Mike H. Fierce! 07:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I never created it. I stole it from somewhere. But thanks for noticing. Yours looks cool too! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"Testing, testing..."

*sigh* Greetings newbie admin. Next time, please check who you're dealing with before firing off condescending advice. Considering that I coded unblock-auto to begin with and it's not exactly the easiest of templates to deal with, you have to give me some leeway when it comes to debugging it. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I did not show the proper respect. I apologize for making a mistake. I of course know who you are, yet sometimes when responding to the unblock requests, I don't always recognize the names, nor is it easy for me to read your mind, and understand the difference between your debugging of the template with some newbie screwing around. I understand that your experience and contributions to Wikipedia are valuable, and yet I am not sure that it entitles you to leave belittling messages on my talk page. I am a grown man, and do not appreciate being talked down to like a little boy. I am truly sorry if I inconvenienced you by interupting your work, but I left no message that deserved the sort of comment you left on my talk page. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to grovel either. And sorry that I snapped at you a bit too harshly. It's 6 in the morning here in Sydney and I really should be sleeping instead of binging on code = P --  Netsnipe  ►  19:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's alright. I really am sorry if I messed you up. And I get testy too sometimes. Are we copacetic? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Time for semi-protection?

Looks like Soccermeko's getting a bit pissed off. Perhaps if we semi'd this list for a few weeks, we'll be able to forestall some trouble.Kww (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

They have all been semiprotected. If you come across any more, let me know, and I'll pick'em off. User talk:Jayron32|talk]].contribs 15:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Graphic with Profanity

I removed the graphic on your wiki page because it violates Wikipedia rules of profanity.

"Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if they are informative, relevant and accurate, and should be avoided when they serve no other purpose than to shock the reader. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not." [6] RipWinkleVan | Talk

And I put it back. That particular graphic is used on dozens of userpages. The profanity guideline is really more for Wikipedia articles, not userpages. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiki rules say that profanity should be avoided when they serve no other purpose but to shock the reader. As a Wikipedia reader I find this graphic offensive because of the profanity in it. RipWinkleVan

Like I said in the edit summary, I removed it once. You reverted back to your desired appearance. I won't be reverting again. Jayron can do what he pleases here. Nice signature. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Please show me where it states in Wiki rules that profanity can be used on userpages. I do not see this stated anywhere and no Jayron32 can not do what he pleases here. This is not a social networking website it is an online community to build a quality encyclopedia. Unless you can tell me in the rules where it says he can have these type of graphics it needs to stay removed. Please read this about what Wiki is not: [[7]]. Look at category: Wikipedia is not a soapbox RipWinkleVan | Talk

Instead of worrying about what is on people's userpages, why don't you practice what you preach and build a quality encyclopedia? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

APK, I am 100% certain that RipVanWinkle is not a new user, as they have been around Wikipedia long enough to be able to do some rather advanced stuff to their signature, and this accounts first edit was to find my user page and remove an image they found "offensive". If they persist, I am quite certain that a checkuser will confirm that they are a sockpuppet of someone I blocked recently. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I am new to Wiki if you would look above at Keepers signature I used his as an example. Its not rocket science. Also why are you so paranoid? --RipWinkleVan | Talk 21:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Jayron, although I agree that the image can stay on your userpage (I reverted ripwinklevan the first time he removed it), I don't think an edit summary like your most recent is at all helpful. It is rather unbecoming of an admin, IMHO, for two reasons. One, it isn't your userpage, it's Wikipedia's, and 2. It is way too tasty. WP:RBI, man. RbI. .02. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I was plainly incivil in that edit summary. I am sorry that I offended you with that. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't personally offended. Takes a heck of a lot more than that -- (admin access only, don't forget who "co-wrote" this). Cheers, looking forward to seeing who RWV really is. As far as the signature goes though, he simply ripped mine, that's all. (in the editing screen you'll notice he uses the same coding as my message immediately above his second post). Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

For all of you to to be admins you are sure not acting like admins. I gave reasons for me removing the graphic above and all I get is your personal opinions why it should stay. Not one of you ADMINS referenced the Wiki rules that I provided and took the rules into consideration. You all sound like a bunch of kids bickering. Per the Wiki rules my first attempt to change something should be done through the editor. This is seeming pointless at this time. I will advance this to the next stage since you ADMINS will not have an intelligent conversation about this. --RipWinkleVan | Talk 21:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Rip, you gave a link to a guideline that says it can be broken. Right on the top. The guideline is for Mainspace (which means Wikipedia articles). Userspace (like user talk and userpages) are not Mainspace. It is very interesting to me that the very first edit you ever made as a Wikipedian is to go to a User page and remove something that you found "offensive." I'm also not a big fan of you copying my signature, but so be it. Oh, and AgnosticPreachersKid is not an admin. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"Oh, and AgnosticPreachersKid is not an admin." Dang Keeper, why did you have to ruin it! :P AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to burst the bubble, APK. Someday soon, I'm sure. I didn't want you to get dragged into this malarkey. Apparently, Rip is going to tell on "us admins" by taking this to the "next stage." Not sure what that means, but figured you didn't need teh greef. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I know, I'm just playin with ya. I don't think the mop is for me, but one day in the far future who knows. I find it funny when I see new users (I won't name people) constantly talk about their goal is to become an admin. If the main reason someone is on this site is to one day become an admin, IMHO they're here for the wrong reasons. If it happens, it happens. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage APK (sorry Jayron for all the bright orange bars today :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"The next stage"? And I couldn't help but comment. (sorry, I know you'd like us to all go away (about this anyway)) Shenme (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK for St. Paul A.M.E. Church

On 26 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St. Paul A.M.E. Church, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bencherlite^Talk 10:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Xinunus

Xinunus (who you blocked) is requesting an unblock. I'm likely to do it if he promises to leave you alone, unless you see some reason why this is inappropriate. I haven't seen the content of the emails you were sent though, so your perspective on that would be appreciated. He represents them as reporting you to AN/I, or some such similar place where he'd just be laughed off, which is not a legal threat. If he's misrepresenting them, please let me know. Thanks, WilyD 15:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Err, indeed I've been accused to having too much faith in people's abilities to reform, but yes, if he promises to stop and doesn't, he'll get reblocked and that'll be that. WilyD 18:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Just FYI, he declined my offer to unblock him if he behaved. WilyD 14:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Master Juba peer review

Hi, Jayron! I just put up Master Juba for peer review here. The peer review volunteers page says you're interested in American history, so I thought I'd ask you to take a look if you get the chance. Thanks for any help! — Dulcem (talk) 06:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Flick Ohmsford

Will you re-create this page? He plays a central part in The Sword of Shannara and a minor one in The Elfstones of Shannara.....and quite a few Shannara-related pages link to him--but it is a redlink.....Mainly, it is because I am to lazy to write the article again from stratch....if you re-create, I'll add some references too--though possibly not until Monday. Thank you! the_ed17 19:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Wikipedia: Wikiproject Shannara also has it on its To-do list, if that is even another reason. =D

P.S.S. I am asking you because you are the one who deleted it after its PROD. =)

Religon Article

Hello user Jayron Wiki Admin. i would like to know if you could give me support for couple of articles i am researching and working on. i am a student at University if Toronto (Scarborough Campus) and am currently studying at the Department of Philosophy & Religion. My intrest is Hinduism and Sacred Books. At this moment i have learned that in the holy books of Hinduism contains quotes about the following people

1. Jesus
2. Adam and Eve
3. Muhammad
4. Abraham
5. Ayyub
6. Moses

the list goes on.

Currently my team (U of T) is working on an article called (Mahamada) which contains information from an Hindu prespective and mentions about Muhammad in several books. Some users perhaps racist users are not allowing us to contribute to this article and are redirecting the article to another holy book that describes Muhammad. This is not fair for the other holy books containing information about Muhammad. We are working on Mahammad article because we have enough information to claim Jesus and the second target was Mahamad. could you watch out for the article. We are not yet going to revert the edits by them until we post actual photos of these holy books and the texts. --Vedesh10 (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

User:IronCrow

Hello Jayron, I got your name of of the list of sysops and I was wondering if you could check something out for me. This user is adding 'Christian Rock' to Family Force 5 genre(s) and is using heavily-biased, first-party sources to back up this claim. Also, in these sources the band does not refer to themselves as 'Christian Rock' they merely talk about being Christians. I have informed the said user of policy and they continue to revert my edits when I try and fix the problem. He/She says policy does not apply here and I need to use common sense. If I am wrong and policy infact does not apply here I will gladly step down, and drop the issue. If you have the time to check this out I would greatly appreciate it, and if not I understand. Thanks and have a great day. Landon1980 (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your time and opinion. I'm not trying to cause problems here. My only issue is how he is sourcing his claim. He is using first-party, heavily-biased sources to do this. Within the sources the don't even contain the words 'Christian Rock' He is using the statement "We don't care if ppl label us a Christian Band or not" to back up his claim. I just feel that if this claim were true they would say "We don't care if ppl label us a Christian Band, because we are a christian Band." Or at least something to that effect. I have frequented wikipedia for years now, this is my first account, and first time doing much editing but I am familiar with policy. I have never seen primary sources, and heavily-biased sources be used for things like this, let alone ones that you are expected to draw a conclusion by reading, and use common sense. I would think if they are going to be these kind of sources they should at least be explicit. If this claim is true he should be able to properly source it, or at least use a proper primary source. I'm not going to continue to clutter up your page with this. Just answer one question for me and I'll leave you alone. Why does policy not apply in this situation so I know in the future. On the said article ppl have tried to do what he did for months, now all of the sudden he comes along adds that genre and it sticks. I follow policy and all my edits are reverted. All I want him to do is properly source his claim, if he cannot do this it isn't my problem. Landon1980 (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it is up to the user adding the content to find and add the references for it. He and I have reached an agreement anyways. I thought Christian sites were biased, if you just ggogle Family Force 5, instead of "Family Force 5 Christian review" nothing regarding Christianity pops up. I'm not going to mess with the article any more. I'll leave that up to someone else. I just thought if you want to put in an article someone eats tomatoes, the best place to verify this isn't a site that promotes eating tomatoes. I'm sure you know what I mean. Actual reliable un-biased sources for the most part call them alternative rock, or crunk Rock. The Christian sites are the only that do otherwise. Some good sources call them a Christian crossover Crunk Rock band, but certainly not 'Christian Rock'. You don't have to worry about this, I'm not going to mess with the article. Landon1980 (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Grace Engineered Products

Jayron I put up that page for Grace Engineered Products heres the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Liberated169/DRAFT let me know if there is anything else i need to do to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberated169 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football April 2008 Newsletter

The April 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know

Wheely Willy does not necessarily have anything to do with Wikipedia vandalism. DS (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: 203.89.179.3

I was using Huggle, and Huggle interpreted it as vandalism after final warning, given the recent level 4 warning. Additionally, it has edited twice today, not once. Regards, They call me X Really 04:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh... Have they edit again? Then was a block necessary? If they do return to vandalise in short order, and need stopping, re-report. Otherwise, what is the utility of a block at this point? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your reasons. I'm trying to explain two things: 1)Why it was reported. 2)That it had 2 edits, not 1. They call me X Really 04:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

OK.... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)