Jump to content

User talk:Jayron32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zogonthetyne (talk | contribs) at 19:22, 15 February 2008 (→‎Thanks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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


You blanked this user page. I'd ask you to reconsider. This user has been disruptive and most abusive. I'm pretty sure that he was a sock-puppeteer a couple of years ago until he settled on this persona. The other personas were User:Haqiqat101 & User:Curandero101. All three edited almost exclusively on two articles, and these edits consisting of planting the {{NPOV}} tag on them and flaming the regulars on the talk pages.

He's taken two blocks for personal attacks and edit warring, and I'm about to report him for more more of the same. If memory serves, several of the items up there on his user page were related to his conduct and, I believe, are supposed to be posted there. If there were warnings, then shouldn't these should go to his talk page? MARussellPESE (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, because the user page was blanked I can't access its history. I'm not an admin. There were more warnings than my suspected sockpuppet tag. If memory serves, there was a warning about edit warring on Ayahuasca. I don't think these should be on his user page, but I'd like the Ayahuasca thing to not get lost. This has been a persistently problematic user, but if you think his, now, three blocks are evidence enough of this then I'm cool. Ciao, MARussellPESE (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jayron32, the user returned with his usual behaviour; removing some material from Maitreya, and putting the a {{POV}} tag on Subh-i-Azal without giving any specific reasons, or trying to improve the page. When a third-party editor asked him to work within Wikipedia policies, he noted "I am not remotely interested in working within the wikipedia system unhless this system was more interested in truth" [1]. What do you recommend should be done? Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the AfD closure/Assistance/Feedback request

Aggie Bonfire leadership is the second AfD Cumulus Cloud has submitted (in which I have been involved) that was rejected. I am concerned with his attitude and would like your feedback regarding his edits, most recently on the Kyle Field talk page. He has made numerous misquoted, misleading, hostile, and threatening statements, to try and get his way. He has carried this "technique" over to almost every major page I have touched. No end is in sight.

That said, I realize I am in the heat of the dispute and it is possible I am missing something, so a third party opinion would be appreciated. As an admin I respect (though someone with whom I don't always agree), your opinion would be appreciated You can respond on the talk page or on my user page, whichever you feel is appropriate. I do NOT intend this as an attack of any kind on CC, merely an attempt to get feedback/guidance and see if I am missing something. — BQZip01 — talk 05:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CC is right about who submitted it; I stand corrected. — BQZip01 — talk 03:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either you type very fast or that was a canned response (pretty good one by the way). This is already in an RfC, but with only two limited responses after 2+ weeks. Any suggestions on how to get more responses? Thanks — BQZip01 — talk 05:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Good advice. — BQZip01 — talk 05:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spentsuch

Hi, after reviewing the case I have granted the unblock to User talk:Spentsuch. I decided he warrants a second chance and will keep an eye on him. As a technical question, and as I'm a freshly minted admin, I am not sure of the protocol and templates for unblocking messaging. I did the unblock and posted a message on his talk page w/o any template. If that is not the proper way, please correct the messaging or tell me and I'll do it. I did look at the blocking and block appeal pages and did not find a proper syntax. Happy wiking! -- Alexf42 11:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Did it properly now. -- Alexf42 13:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Hi, there seems to be an edit war going on with the United Kingdom article. A certain POV keeps getting added and deleted. Would you take a look please? Mjroots (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both users have been warned. If they continue to revert each other, BOTH may be blocked for 3RR. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the discussion to the talk page; it is the users who are reverting my edits that have refused to try to build consesus there before reverting edits, despite being invited to on several occasions, both by myself, other users and an admin. I have now reported the matter as a 3RR violation as three users appear to be "teaming up" to replace the POV statement. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I have discussed this extensively at the talk page, for about two weeks already. Unfortunately, there are a number of English editors who consistently delete material they don't agree with even if is sourced, stalk users who dare to question their glorification of the UK and attack those users over whatever they can come up with, including other users' nationality and/or supposed political belonging. In my opinion, you can find few better sourced on the UK economy than the Financial Times, the source these users keep deleting all the time. JdeJ (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to both Dan1980 AND JdeJ:
Do not defend a particular version of the article to me and then attempt to reinstate it. Instead, use the methods described at Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution such as a request for comment or a Request for Third Opinion. Neither of you appear to be taking any moral high ground on this issue, and should seek uninvolved editors to give a neutral opinion on the matter. This should be done with the current version of the page in place, even though it is the wrong version. This is not an endorsement of EITHER position in the matter, but rather a statement that the current practice of repeatedly reverting each other must be stopped. This should be done REGARDLESS of who is "right". Being "right" does not give you the privilege of acting poorly. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

This definitely made me smile! gb (t, c) 17:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't laugh, sometimes you'd just cry... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aggie Bonfire leadership

Hey Jayron, I reformatted your close for the AfD that you recently closed. The ---{{subst:at}} '''RESULT'''~~~~--- template goes above everything (not just in place of the afd template). Look at this diff to see what I mean. You may already know this, but I just learnt it myself, so, you know, Pay It Forward:-) Cheers, Keeper | 76 17:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning that up! Sometimes the mop slips, you know? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And sometimes we purposely don't put up a Slippery When Wet sign, just to see what happens. Heh heh. No, we wouldn't do that, would we? ;)Keeper | 76 17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who, me??? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, be-have. That made me Laugh Out Loud. Keeper | 76 17:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congradulations (a bit late) on getting History of American Football featured. I didn't vote, but I saw that you did a lot of work. Cheers, Basketballone10 01:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to give my congrats as well, and was wondering if you could review a recent college football FAC I've put up -- I've had a lot of trouble getting people to review it, and I'd greatly appreciate any help you could give. Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question about a new article POPJNEO

hi jayron32, you gave me advice on my article, i added the refrences i used, so could you take a look at it and tell me if it's alright?... or what else needs to be fixed?.. thanks... also i had another question... if this is a magazine, does it need to be called POPJNEO(magazine)? thanks for your time. --W2fphoenix (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football February 2008 Newsletter

The February 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) 22:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

I was just over at your wikiproject and I noticed a couple things that you could do to improve your article. I noticed that there are a few other football wikiprojects floatiog around and I think that you guys should consolodate for ease of reasearch. I found that your wikiproject was very confusing to someone who was doing reasearch on football for and knew nothing about it. Like me... I would appriciate if you left a message to me about these ideas. I also post disscussion topics on my talk page and would love it if you would discuss these with me on my talk page!Historybuffc13 (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry me again POPJNEO article

i dont know what happend to my edit from last night... i had other refrences... i changed it again... for any reason does it resort back to it's original text after you push save?... anyways, i canged it again.. hopefully it will stay this time can you check it again, sorry for the inconvience.--W2fphoenix (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Thanks for blatting that vandal. Astral (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By all means - my concern, and the reason for the block, was that the user did not discuss his concerns before re-adding the material, ignoring the warnings that had been posted. That's also why the duration was deliberately lower than the typical 24 hours. No problem with the unblock. Should I proceed and unblock, or should you do so, as the unblock reviewing admin? Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Thank you, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer reviews

I notice you are listed as a peer review volunteer and have listed 19th century American history among your interests. I would appreciate your comments on two articles on which I have worked significantly: Solomon P. Sharp and Richard Mentor Johnson. Thank you. Acdixon (talk contribs count) 18:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Thanks for unprotecting those pages!! --Solumeiras (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woops

Sorry. That IP seemed to be on quite a tear and ignored too many warnings for me to let it go so I zapped him. You can undo if you want. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh.... Whatev.... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jayron32. You have new messages at Ioeth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You speedy deleted the article Brandon Locher which was listed at AFD. Can you please close the AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Locher? And also can you delete the talk page Talk:Brandon Locher that should be deleted with the main article? Thanks. Deli nk (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. The afd template was added after I last looked at the article but before I hit the delete button, sometime during that 60 second span. Thus the confusion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm sure I added the template hours before, but it doesn't matter. Thanks for taking care of it! Deli nk (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. No harm no foul... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007 ACC Championship Game

You mentioned something on the FAC page about knowing a few copyeditors who'd be willing to take a look at this article... JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and list it on the LOCE page. I have also buzzed a few people for some help. I'll let you know what they say... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've thrown it on there. The main reason I haven't done this earlier is because there's such a large backlog at LoCE that it's practically useless (at least in my past experience ... it may have changed) in terms of getting a rapid response. That's through no fault of the membership, just a problem with the number of articles that need help. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True. For the record, I am still waiting on some responses... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I talked to someone as well, and judging from the small dis change he did, he's at least taken a cursory glance at it. Hopefully we can get at least a little more input on that. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any luck? JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, sorry, they all backed out, claim to be too busy in "real life". What's this "real life" thing anyways. Erg. Sorry I couldn't be any more help specifically. Unfortunately, all I have left is LOCE, so I guess we're gonna have to just wait in line. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll just keep bugging Blnguyen for a review and see if anything results from it. I've made the other changes you suggested ... I hate having to wait for someone. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Blnguyen's made some requests that I need to fix, and it looks as if Karanacs is doing some copyediting of his own, so I'll drop you a note when they're all done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JKBrooks85 (talkcontribs) 20:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Can you re-review the article now? Someone's gone through and trimmed the prose, and I've corrected the things that Blnguyen suggested. Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the "Ahem"

I thought about saying something, but thought better about it hoping someone else would do so. — BQZip01 — talk 03:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it can be kept elsewhere, but not in the same editable form. It will be more difficult to edit/preview. Furthermore, the WP:TALK guideline explicitly allows this and the talk page shows this is the exact type of page they were talking about when they came to consensus on it. I'm truly sorry if some people don't like it, but that is a discussion that should be moved to the guideline page, not deleting my page based on vague and unbacked accusations as to what I will or won't do with the information. I'm not the kind of guy who wants harmony for the sake of harmony, but I will certainly deal in my actions with civility. — BQZip01 — talk 03:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you much

first id like to start by thanking you for the welcome and the help. im pretty sure i got it right this time, if not please let me know so i can correct it. i was wondering i made another article about a band and that got deleted to, any idea as to why? HANDSOME RUDY (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so what your saying is

i should read over those things carefully? ok will do, but what about the user page? Is that one out of line? or am i on targetish? HANDSOME RUDY (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok than you u were very helpful, and im pretty sure youll be hearing from me again haha. HANDSOME RUDY (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI question at AN/I

[2] That's just mean. Pairadox (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on. You laughed at it! Admit it! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL Never! Pairadox (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE CLOSE THIS!!!

Hello again, Jayron32 ... would you please take a look at this AfD? I think that it should be Speedy closed as a CSD G7 ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 06:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph The Fisherman

Thanks for you intercedence. I'd like to call upon your expertise going forward, so as not to cause any other problems. Bilbobag (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added to the article you started, and have asked the other poster for his opinions on the following proposed addition. I'd also like your comments. please.

To many “Grovers”, the destruction of the Ocean Grove Fishing Pier and boardwalk by the northeast winter storm of 1992, was devastating (Footnote to be added referencing A POINT OF PRIDE SWEPT OFF BY STORM - OCEAN GROVE LOST MORE THAN TIMBER. THE PIER WAS PART OF ITS LIFE. Source: William R. Macklin, Published December 14, 1992, Page S01, Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA)) With the town's spirits at an all time low, late one night two friends, Carol and Bob, climbed a 20' high piling and erected a dummy of a fisherman. Named "Ralph", an acronym for Rising Above the Long Pier of Hope, he immediately became a local favorite as he smiled down at beachgoers, and helped buoy the town’s spirits. This was demonstrated later that summer, when his image was used on T-Shirts by The Ocean Grove Fishing Club to help raise funds to rebuild the town’s century old, landmark, fishing pier (photo of t-shirt to be included). When the pier was rebuilt the following year, Ralph was given a permanent perch upon which to sit...and to this day he can be seen sitting there (photo). As an indication of his inspiration and popularity, in 2002, ten years after he was erected, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association honored Ralph by making him the first fictional character to ever appear on the town’s summer beach badge.

RFC comments

I knew you'd come up with a better endorse.... It's probably a better explanation of the opinion I have. Regards, Rudget. 17:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI - its not terribly important, but prior to your partial support of my statement Alison actually withdrew support for her own suggestion. I only point it out because you mentioned 'endorsed by Alison.' Avruchtalk 18:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless if she still supports it or not, she came up with it, and I still support it... Even if semantically incorrect, my intentions are clear. I think a mentorship program is a good idea. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aye aye, understandable. Avruchtalk 18:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Styrofoam1994

I'd not advocate an unblock. He broke 3RR and was quite nasty in some talk comments. Personally, I think that a 48-hour block is on the lower end of what I could've issued, you could take it to ANI if you want, I'd be happy with more input. Thanks for contacting me. Keilana|Parlez ici 22:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, glad to see you're getting the hang of it. Cheers, Keilana|Parlez ici 03:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, sounds good. You're doing quite well! :) Keilana|Parlez ici 03:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I always do well, thank you very much... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

You may want to fix the archived section, as you also closed all the threads below the thread you closed. BoL 04:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Typos happen. Sorry. Looks like someone else got it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to see this rampage of User talk:208.120.82.157. The user seems better not to edit Wikipedia because she did the same thing at Korean Wikipedia, so has been blocked for 2 weeks.ko:Special:Contributions/이왕 딸[3] I don't know her claim is right but there is no such publication or news on that. --Appletrees (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Jayron, Less than a month ago my boss asked if I could edit our article on MapEasy. A previous employee had made an account which I didn't have access to so, I made a new account named MapEasy, not knowing that much about wikipedia, which later realized was the wrong thing to do. I was also just adding to the article which I did not originally write and was up for some time. I understand why the part I edited was erased but why was the original article that was there for quite some time erased? We are a well known travel publishing company with best selling products and have many notable sources that we can cite. Can someone help me get the original article up or write an appropriate article that will not get erased? And if so, who should I speak to about this? All of the other leading travel companies have articles up. I am really sorry for the inconvenience. I never meant any harm when putting my article up, just adding to it like my boss had asked. If he finds out it has been deleted he will freak on me. Please help!!! CourtMTK (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ED

Don't take it too personally - it's just that so many admins are being too soft with blocks and allowing people too many chances - I mean, given that his username is a 4chan meme, and he trolled for ED a few hours ago, that should raise major alarm bells. You're supposed to send him to bed without his dinner, not take away his second topping on dessert. See also WP:IDIOT, which I've created because of this and the whole Adult-child sex debacle of the week. Will (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guestbook and RfA

I'm participating in New pages more. Do you think I will be ready soon for RfA? Perhaps I should study some more. Hmm... did you sign my guestbook yet? I hope you do! See ya later! — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 08:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Valentine's Day!


Block of 24.166.188.91 (talk · contribs)

He also edits as CJKC (talk · contribs). You might keep an eye on him. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also my comment at Talk:Civil Recovery Demands (Shoplifting). Carol J seems to be on a vendetta of some kind going back to 2006.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, see, I was just picking off some quick ones at AIV. I don't really care all that much. Sorry. Good luck wity all of that, though! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the respite anyway.LeadSongDog (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at this user page. It it in order for an editor to blank this, or does this come under "wikipedia is not censored" ? Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acupuncture Edit War

I'm glad you and others saw thru all the gaming (including misleading edit summary text) and blocked an editor on the acupuncture page. MeekMark (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I contest the prod. My knowledge of the society is only peripheral - I dabble in the same general field in the same general area - but it's the oldest and largest one in the country, is likely behind the higly significant Finncon, publishes a non-trivial magazine and grants awards. This is not a basement hobbyists' group, it has a library of four and a half thousand books and magazines. Secondary sources exist... somewhere.

This is, I argue, something that should be retained for its cultural significance alone. WP:N, being a guideline, maintains that absence of proof for its requirements does not equal proof of abscence of noteworthiness. If you do not relent, then I ask that you do not jump to AfD straight away. It would take me longer than an AfD lasts to research the matter and hunt for sources, plus I did NOT need more #¤%& work right now. --Kizor 07:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey, here's another thing! If you (for some ungodly reason) need the local knowledge of a Finn in the future to edit articles, ascertain the notability of a subject, provide context or somesuch, feel free to ask me. Mind, there's a significant chance that I'll answer that I do NOT need more #¤%& work at that moment, but I also know how to delegate to bug people. [Appropriate emoticon] --Kizor 07:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really need the knowledge of a Finn... just reliable sources... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of American football

The "random" change was made because the Alabama/Tennessee rivalry seemed to be chosen subjectively and at random. The oldest rivalry in the region was more appropriate in that context.Failureofafriend (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. good one. So noted and fixed... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


question about my user page

did they delete my user page? HANDSOME RUDY (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote!

Hi! Please join us here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lianga13#Bingo.21

Thank so much!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors claim that repeatedly misrepresenting a source is OK

Hello, I put the following issue on ANI but got no apparent admin response. "Editors claim that repeatedly misrepresenting a source is OK" seems to be so unthinkable that admins to date misunderstand the simplicity of this case. (At least to my eyes)

If you don't find interest in looking at this please suggest specifically where I should go. I dont know if this issue has just fallen through the net or if WP operates in ways that I can't concieve of.

This is not a content dispute. Nor is it a dispute over reliability of source. My concern instead is that the behavior, that Prester John and Skyring/Pete promoted durring this discussion, makes working collaboratively a futile exercise: Accurate representations of sources is presented as unnecessary and, in addition, correcting, discussing, recorrecting and then finally lodging an ANI is presented as "disruptive" and "unnecessary".


(re-edited from ANI version)

In article David Hicks /Religious and militant activities/Afghanistan a source lists allegations against David Hicks. (article: US charges David Hicks)
Prester John has repeatedly edited to present the allegations as facts/admissions. He has been told that this is not acceptable. This problem has been discussed here on the article talkpage with PresterJohn and Skyring/Pete and also on archived User_talk:Prester_John#David_Hicks allegations.
Misrepresenting edits
Revision as of 00:43, 3 February 2008
Revision as of 01:59, 13 January 2008
Revision as of 00:10, 12 January 2008
The same edits have also been performed by IP
Revision as of 03:10, 1 February 2008 by 124.180.162.217
PresterJohn had been blocked for 1 month starting 09:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC) by Save_Us_229 according to page Talk to the Hand. The first of the misrepresentation of sources began 12 January 2008.(ANI report lodged 02:17, 3 February 2008)

I am also open to feedback over what I could have done better/differently. Thanks for your time. SmithBlue (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused on how Darqside's edits are not vandalism. It seems to me that he is goofing around and purposely disrupting Wikipedia by making up fanciful stories which are amusing but completely bogus. Specifically here, this spot, and over yonder. This is not "poo" vandalism but it is just as disruptive (in fact, it is more disruptive since it takes measurably longer to sniff it out). Cheers, Noah 06:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For keeping Wikipedia useful

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For your efforts keeping the vandals and mischief-makers at bay I award you this barnstar. (jarbarf) (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
THANKS! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

request for review of Nahuatl

I have been working on the Nahuatl article that you delisted form GA status awhile back. I think it is much improved and would like to hear your comments before trying to get it renominated.I hope you have a little time to spare for this. Thanks beforehand. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at it! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt response. :)·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Son Goten

I read your post on WP:RPP. Think you can watchlist it with me or should I let you know if the puppetry continues? Please reply below. Thanks, Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 18:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have watchlisted it. I will use rollbacks/reversions and blocks until such time as it becomes unmanagable. It does not appear to yet, but I will keep an eye on it as well.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you. I am most grateful for your help. Regards, Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 18:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help with deleted article

Hi Jayron, Thanks for the advice on creating a new article. I have put up a draft on my userpage and created a subpage. The link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CourtMTK/MapEasy. Please let me know if you have any suggestions. I was unsure where to add the quotes, so I kind of just stuck them in there. Also, I was looking at other publishing companies articles and some are stub articles. Is that something I should do? Thanks again for helping me. CourtMTK (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry!

Hello. Sorry about that I have warned the user now and the article has been speedy deleted --Capitana (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, don't forget to be nice to the noobs. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply on my talk. Good advice --Capitana (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you

Thank you so much for helping me. The article looks great! The one link that you said was dead seems to be working for me. Do you think we could add it back in (http://europeforvisitors.com/europe/spymaps/bl_spy_venice.htm) and maybe balance the negative comment at the end with something positive written by the same woman about our Napa/Sonoma map. Maybe something like: Reviews have not always been positive, as one reviewer from about.com, while giving the map generally favorable ratings, found the San Francisco map "too busy".[4] But on the flip side "it's astonishing how much information MapEasy packs onto one map". http://gocalifornia.about.com/od/canapasonoma/gr/mapeasynapa.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by CourtMTK (talkcontribs) 22:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

disregard my last post

Please disregard my comments I didn't see you had already put it up. Thanks again for all your help. It looks great! CourtMTK (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaka

User:Cuyler91093/Shaka

Difficulties with plural things

One of these days you and I are going to have a big fight. I carnt spell, I admit it, less save our punches for a bigger occasion. MF. ;-) Byw, anybody who posts a pic of themselves in a bathrob on the internets is fine by me. Ceoil (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Judy

Hello... regarding the Judge Judy article, it is probably best to protect it temporarily to avoid disruption. However, before judging JuJube's actions too harshly, I would seriously recommend investigating the possibility that the rapidly-changing IP "editors" are one-and-the-same with blocked user EverybodyHatesChris. I originally came to the JJ article several month ago when that editor was evading an indefinite block through a series of sockpuppets; he eventually ended up with having his (then-static) IP blocked as well. The mannerisms are consistent, as well as the slavish dedication to "Judge Judy", the abusive comments, and the tendency to turn against editors who don't support him. Please feel free to ask if you have any questions about this. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 17:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the nature and pattern of the IP's edits, I thought it would be obvious sockpuppetry and I rolled back because banned users aren't allowed to edit. JuJube (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made a thread on ANI regarding his pattern of harassment of Ckatz. Diffs are there. JuJube (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bathrobe edit war.

Come on dude, back me up here: I say this is the best image for the article. Your opinion? · AndonicO Hail! 19:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of 71.202.242.152

It seems to me that this block was improvident. The user responded to a comment on a talk page that he didn't like, and was immediately reverted because of WP:FORUM. So he blanked the original comment, which was just as much a violation. You can't have it both ways. -- Zsero (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has been blanking other people's comments from Talk:Warrior (wrestler). The others discussion was about content and sources to the article. The IP is now back creating more disruption. I have since restored the comments that were again removed by another user. The IP should be blocked longer for his/her continued disruption after the initial block. - ALLSTAR echo 04:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Question

Hi! Thank you for unblocking me. Although I will refrain from uploading pictures I have one question about pictures. Looking at the discussion over whether I should be unblocked I noticed someone said that promotional photos can't be used to depict people. I probably am just not understanding but isn't the picture used on people's pages (like Reba McEntire) promotional photos?--Sportman2 (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My AfD

Hi, it's been two weeks since you last messaged me, and I have been working continuously here (especially in CSD, but participated in one AIV, which was successful, see [4]). Those are a few things you can put on there. I helped a few new users be more acquainted with Wikipedia (see [5], [6], [7], and [8]). — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 06:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I started a new page on the English Wikipedia directly translated from the Spanish Wikipedia. It's not done yet, but it will be someday ([9]) — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 06:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA change proposal

I have been talking for about two weeks with another user about a proposal to change how admin get their mop. This is all based off of observation I have made over time. Below is a cut out from my first email I sent to the user, the conversation was concerning recent incidents involving new admin. The other user suggested I propose this to an admin and as I like you I thought I would suggest it to you. The reason behind the cutout is that I did not want to type all of that again.

"Have you taken note about how unreliable some of the administrators are, not all just some of the ones who have been recently added. I like the older ones but the new ones seem to be using to much water when using their mops. Take note at the AN/I there was a recent case in which an admin was over doing it with the blocks. He was shiny new, I believe he got his powers that week. But he is not the only one, if you go the noticeboards often you would notice that a lot of the new administrators only tend to last less than a week or so because they are either edit warring with their powers or abusing the block function which goes hand in hand with edit warring. I am not calling out anyone here but I do feel it a necessity to change the process in which admin are selected. because RfA seems to be failing. I would like suggest that Wikipedia stay with RfA but instead of just giving out the tools in a huge pack. They should dole out the powers in separate chunks based off a system of tasks that need to be completed before you can get a certain power. Lets say you wanted to get the block ability, you would need to properly report a certain number of people to WP:AIV and then after that request the ability to block like a rollback proposal. It would only require the person seeking the power to keep track of the number of edits."

The reporting to WP:AIV was just an example and I do not suggest it. I also do not feel it necessary for all tools just high risk ones. Rgoodermote  11:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree entirely. The system is fine. With almost 2000 admins, there are bound to be some screwups. I don't see any evidence of a widespread problem. Archtransit aside, I haven't seen any real problematic new admins... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in here (why are you on my watchlist Jayron? Did you screw up somewhere? Hmm..anywho... Rgoodermote, I would recommend telling your email buddy to also read this little essay for clarification as to why that particular Pandora's Box that you think would be interesting has in fact been nailed and glued shut, buried deep beneath the ocean floor, never to be reopened. Adminship broken down into steps, completion of tasks? Yikes, talk about MMORPG'ing. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I never screw up. I would be perfect, except once, many years ago I thought I was wrong. It turns out that I actually was right. Other than that, my record of perfection in all situations is untarnished. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it's good to see that someone else around here is modest. I for one, am one of the humblest people I know. I'm humbler than everyone. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that my perfection is only overshadowed by your humilty. My hat is off to you sir!--Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why haven't you messaged me back? I believe I have messaged you about four to five times, and you have not replied. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 17:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, alright then. I will keep working and then I will try. Sorry to bother you! — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 17:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because you one of my favorite admin I will listen to you. But I still feel a change is in store. So I will go back to th drawing boards. By the way, your talk page appears to be on my watchlist to...what did you do? Rgoodermote  17:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do lots of things. But you'll never prove any of them. Muhahaha. Muhahaha. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of these days we will figure it out, until then happy editing. Rgoodermote  17:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine McCann

Time for semi-protection for a while I'm afraid. We can't go on reverting thiss guy all night. Harry the Dog (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scottevans05

He's been a pain in the neck over at the Doctor Who list of serials for quite some time - we tend to just RBI. User:Rodhullandemu is also a bit annoyed with him too. But anyway, does this count for adding poorly sourced material? The character did die in the previous (just aired) episode, but, if you've been watching Lost, for example, death doesn't mean you can't be in the cast any more. Will (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

OK... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shimon Peres

Hi. Ive nominated this article for a peer review and saw you were interested in the topics it covers. If you are able to, any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clear and straightforward explanation as to why we had to decline. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I do my best. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AkiKumira99

Should I removed the plagurized awards on her talk page? I've dealt with this user before. BoL 05:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Took care of it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The barnstar from Nlu was legit. I restored that one.  :) Corvus cornixtalk 05:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor thing

Hey Jayron, I've seen you around and have always thought you made really good points and I've come to respect your opinion. I did want to mention, though, that I think you may be coming off as more hostile than you mean to with posts like this one and the one in that thread before it, since it's so easy to misinterpret terse posts as being mean (and if you do intend to sound mean, I'd submit that that's probably not the best way to handle the situation). Figured I'd bring it up to you and let you act on it or ignore it as you choose :) Peace, delldot on a public computer talk 11:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right about that. Sometimes we all get in "moods" and I am no different. I will try to be more thoughtful in my posts. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) I was shy about mentioning this, so I'm glad you were nice about it :) Peace, delldot talk 15:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaka

Hi, I don't know if you got this message, yet, so I will give it to you again.

I have used the talk page in the past with web-citations to issue why my statement is right, however the editor Gregs the baker chooses not to listen to me and keep reverting, he is being a WP:DICK about things. 86.150.252.106 (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for stopping the geordie dispute, I did post a rationale on Talk:Geordie, but he ignored it, take a look. Zogonthetyne (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ip should have been blocked, I agree with that, but please do not accuse me of being the Ip or banned user, I created the account to edit the article geordie, as you seen, and the dispute cutted after my simple edits, thus leading to me attempting to settle the dispute which is being dicussed on Talk:Geordie. Zogonthetyne (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]