User talk:I JethroBT

Closure request

I JethroBT, when it comes time for this RfC regarding WP:Spoiler to close, will you close it? It's a complicated discussion, and this is a case where I'd be more comfortable with a very good closer such as yourself handling it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I'd be happy to; the discussion is just over a week old and still active, though. Would you mind if I waited until activity slowed down there? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. And, yes, I expected a waiting period. This is why I stated "when it comes time for." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Ah sorry, missed that one. :P I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: The RfC tag recently expired. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I did catch your message, sorry I didn't reply earlier! I haven't had a lot of time to set aside to doing the review based on the depth of the discussion. I normally try to do these in one sitting, but with my current WMF work and off-wiki circumstances, I need to read and take notes over a few days before I'm ready to close the discussion. I am still planning on doing the close, but I'll probably need until the weekend. Is that OK? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. And, yes, that's okay.

On a side note: Since I watch your talk page, there is usually no need to ping me here to it. The pinging is not a problem for me, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Flyer, I'm sorry to step back like this, but I really don't have time to close this one right now. I'm going to be away on vacation soon and I have too much stuff to do off-wiki before I leave. I tried to sit down to check it out again last night, and I couldn't focus because I've been so exhausted. I know ANRFC takes forever, but please post the request there if you'd like it closed by an uninvolved admin. My apologies, I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 13:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I just saw that it's listed there, and I was going to note there that you plan to close this one, but then I saw your latest comment here. While I would have preferred you close this, since I don't think it's going to get the close it deserves otherwise, I appreciate you considering the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For closing an RFC that would result in people complaining no matter how you close it, I award you the You can't please everyone barnstar. Your work in difficult areas is appreciated. HighInBC 16:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey thanks, HighInBC! In the end, I reconsidered my close because folks had some good points to the contrary. You might be surprised, but with the RfCs I've closed, I've received a great deal more appreciation than complaints. I'm very thankful for it. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

A difficult case. HighInBC 15:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add that I in particular appreciate your close, and would have appreciated it whether I agreed with it or not. I cannot reasonably expect a closer to agree with me, but I do expect a thoughtful close, and it was clear from the start that this is what we got in this case. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I, too, would like to belatedly add my expression of appreciation for your efforts in this matter. Volunteering to wade into such a complicated issue, where good points (and passionate involvement) are to be found on all sides, takes a particular rare quality of dedication to the Wikipedia project. The fact that you found arguments compelling enough at separate points during your review to render closing arguments for competing sides of the issue attests not only to the complexity of the issue, but also to your thoroughness in pursuing the best final resolution. I hope you'll find it reassuring that your eventual final decision that "consensus was to exclude the religion parameter from the biography infobox", has been echoed by the Wikipedia community at the Village Pump in a subsequent related RfC, which determined there was "Overwhelmingly clear consensus to remove the parameter from the infoboxes." Thanks for leading, and the above Barnstar is well deserved. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

April Fools? Nope! Welcome to the Women Scientists worldwide online edit-a-thon during Year of Science

Join us!
	Women Scientists - worldwide online edit-a-thon - a Year of Science initiative Hosts: Women in Red, Women Scientists Sponsor: WikiEdu April-December 2016 #wikiwomeninred #yearofscience #contentgap

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

• News and notes: Trump/Wales 2016

• In the media: Saskatoon police delete Wikipedia content about police brutality

• WikiProject report: Why should the Devil have all the good music? An interview with WikiProject Christian music

• Traffic report: Donald v Daredevil

• Featured content: A slow, slow week

• Technology report: Browse Wikipedia in safety? Use Telnet!

• Recent research: "Employing Wikipedia for good not evil" in education; using eyetracking to find out how readers read articles

• Wikipedia Weekly: Podcast #121: How April Fools went down

• Blog: Growing hashtags: Expanding outreach on Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

good morning! I just sent you an email if you could please check it. Ftripodi (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

• Op-ed: Should prison inmates be permitted to edit Wikipedia?

• News and notes: Denny Vrandečić resigns from Wikimedia Foundation board

• In the media: Wikimedia Sweden loses copyright case; Tex Watson; AI assistants; David Jolly biography

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Traffic report: A welcome return to pop culture and death

• Arbitration report: The first case of 2016—Wikicology

• Gallery: A history lesson

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

imagine others complexly
... you were recipient no. 1182 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: It's been a good year for me, Gerda. I remember last April, I was in a rough patch, and receiving this recognition from you was very kind and lifted my spirits. I hope this past year has been kind to you as well. :) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 09:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. This past year had very high and very low points. A friend died, another returned after vanishing. I archived "pride and prejudice 2" end of 2015, which is good ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 16

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 16, February-March 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

• New donations - science, humanities, and video resources
• Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project
• A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates
• Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week : nominations needed!

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

• News and notes: Lunar project; steering group formed to search for next executive director

• Op-ed: Knowledge Engine and the Wales–Heilman emails

• Special report: Update on EranBot, our new copyright violation detection bot

• Traffic report: Two for the price of one

• Featured content: The double-sized edition

• Arbitration report: Amendments made to the Race and intelligence case

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)