On a break while attending university.
Requests will not be fulfilled in a timely manner, if at all.

If there's a problem with an old admin action of mine,
just reverse it or have it reversed. I don't care.

WikiProject Living people needs your help!

Categorize: WP:UBLP
Check new BLPs: WP:NEWBLP
Participate in AFDs: BLP AFDs
Help resolve content issues: WP:BLP/N
Monitor recent changes to BLPs: BLP watchlist
Remove BLP vios: WP:BLPFIX, Unsourced statements, All unreferenced BLPs, BLPs lacking sources
Possible vandalism or libelous edits, as detected by edit filters 39 and 189. Removal of Category:Living people (filter 117)

					Subpages
User	Awards	BRC	Notebook	Contribs	Subpages	E-mail

Jennavecia (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

BLP-related things

	Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers.
	2007: [Mar] [Apr] [May] [Jun] [Jul] [Jul 2] [Aug] [Aug 2] [Sep] [Sep 2] [Oct] [Oct 2] [Nov] [My RfA] [Nov 2] [Dec] [Dec 2]; 2008: [Jan] [Jan 2] [Jan 3] [Feb] [Feb 2] [Mar] [Mar 2] [Apr] [Apr 2] [May] [May 2] [Jun] [Jun 2] [Jun 3] [Jul] [Jul 2] [Aug] [Aug 2] [Sep] [Sep 2] [Oct] [Oct 2] [Oct 3] [Nov] [Nov 2] [Nov 3] [Dec] [Dec 2]; 2009: [Jan] [Retirement] [Apr] [May] [Jun] [Jun 2] [Chet] [Jul] [Jul 2] [Aug] [Sep] [BLP] [Oct]

Gifts for my friends (and my enemies)

This user believes in the liberal use of semi-protection for Biographies of living people.

{{User:Jennavecia/Userbox/BLPsemi}}

This user believes in the use of semi-protection for all Biographies of living people.

{{User:Jennavecia/Userbox/BLPsemiAll}}

BLP AFDs

Category:AfD debates (Biographical). Is there any way to have a bot update a subpage to regularly list and update these in order of close time? Maybe updating daily or every 12 hours? Would be helpful to keep them in order. This used to be done with a full page of discussions listed. If it could merely list the links as to avoid bogging down the page with so many kb, that would be awesome. Lara 05:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ST47 has a bot that tracks AFDs by date, and writes a table here. It looks like it stopped running on 7 September. It also tracked AFDs by category (at User:ST47/AfDC), but I think that stopped as well, since I was really the only user who used the table, and I was still on my long-ass wikibreak. The bot still looks like it has approval, so ST47 might be able to do something fancy with it.

On point, The trick would be that AFDs frequently get shifted around in categories - I personally sweep through the Not Yet Sorted, Nom Unsure, and Indiscernable Topic categories and reassign as necessary. So a chronological list of AFDs by category would have to go by the AFD date, not the date on which the article was added. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting by the date of the AFD is good. I just don't have time to click through 150+ BLP AFDs every day. If they're in order of date, I can just go through the ones that are coming close to ending and either vote or close as needed. I can just go through the daily listing of AFDs, but I generally only care about the biographical ones and I want to be able to keep track of them. Lara 15:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's noone else you have to hand, I can add a task to User:FritzpollBot to do this - would just need a target subpage. Let me know if you want me to do this - it looks like a relatively easy task Fritzpoll (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you set it up for User:Jennavecia/AFDBIO? I appreciate it, Fritz! Lara 20:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just logged in and found this - will get to it after work, should have something by this evening BST Fritzpoll (talk) 07:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - at least the first phase. Can you check the output and tell me about any other formatting issues? I haven't sorted it by expected time of closure within debates: fiddly to get to and generally useless since they get closed out of sequence anyway. That's a design decision I made on your behalf, but let me know if it's critical. If the output is ok, I'll get a BAG approval for it, and update regularly - what interval are you after? Fritzpoll (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself, that list looks good - and I'm surprised to see that it found a debate from June sitting there unlisted, which I closed. The only other element that might be helpful would be to add a notation for relisted debates. It might be as simple as adding (relisted) at the end of the listing for any debate that includes Category:Relisted AfD debates. This would distinguish between debates that are close to being closed, and debates that have another 7 days or so to run. I defer to Lara, though, as this is her area and her request - but good, quick work there, Fritzpoll. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's great. I too was amused by the June debate. I agree with Ultra that having a notation for the relisted debates would be nice. Overall, though, this is exactly what I wanted. Thank you! Lara 14:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That did throw me to start with - I thought it was a bug in the code! I'm currently re-running the code with a small check for relists - won't necessarily know if it works until there is a relisted debate. How often do you want your subpage updated? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least once a day. I think every 24-hours is probably sufficient. Lara 17:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, going through the motions at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot 4 just in case this causes some dramatic objection - expecting it to sail through though. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - was speedily approved. Daily updates will occur around lunchtime in Britain - there'll be a shift tomorrow as I place it on a permanently active machine of mine. Thereafter, every 24 hours. Any problems, or bugs, let me know. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Frirzpoll. I appreciate it. Lara 12:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Messages

On your statement

Wow. Did you and I leave like the opposite sorts of statements at ArbCom. I think yours was like 3000x longer than mine. Wild times. --Jayron32 05:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, we all deserve a change to be verbose now and then. I save mine up and drop it in one huge wall of text. Lara 05:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, but needs more paragraph breaks.--Tznkai (talk) 06:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that. I'm just to tired to see them.--Tznkai (talk) 06:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Press ctrl and scroll up. Haha. My vision is too poor for small fonts. Lara 06:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I may have you beat there. -8 in both eyes (one is .25 worse than the other i think) and an astigmatism in the left. --Tznkai (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I always forget this. What is my vision... I think my last eye exam was around 50/150. Something like that. Astigmatism in both eyes. I went to see about Lasik a few years ago. I was told the vision in my right eye may have prevented them from doing the surgery because if they screwed up my "good eye," it would be bad times to rely on my bad one. After speaking to the doc, I was told he would do it. I ended up not getting it done, and my vision has gotten slightly worse. However, I think technology probably would allow for me to get it regardless at this point. Lara 06:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I thought your statement did you a lot of credit. I think you (and others) erred somewhat severely in how you approached the situation (particularly the matter of Law running for RfA) but I appreciate your candor and imagine others will as well. Though it likely won't be discussed this way, I think this situation (along with some other recent stuff elevated to arbitration) demonstrates the extent to which editing on Wikipedia has far more to do with interpersonal realities and calculations than we often like to pretend. I'm one of those who—more so than many—sees that as a problem, but it's also the kind of problem that humans are pretty much always going to have when they try to do stuff in a collective fashion, and perhaps we could do well with a bit more honesty about that fact. In that respect I think your statement is very much a step in the right direction, regardless of how things shake out with this specific situation going forward. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) Lara 13:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to add a "Me too" to the list, but your statement was quite well done, and I do hope everything works out for the best. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you as well. :) Lara 14:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pile on support Simply one of the best worded statements I've ever read! ;) — Ched : ? 16:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you saying that, Ched. Lara 20:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link please? I'm sure I can find things to object to about it. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's my statement on the RFAR. Lara 20:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must say. That was a very well-written statement. JamieS93 20:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jamie. Lara 20:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a joke this arbitration is. Heaps of very high-ranking folks knew of another admin's sock that double dipped. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's very true. Lara 01:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from Benjamin Presley Keough

Hello Jennavecia, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Benjamin Presley Keough has been removed. It was removed by 66.108.95.79 with the following edit summary '(Notability is not in question! References have been added. The Fact is notability is not inherited but a 5 million dollar deal is notable for any new artist.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 66.108.95.79 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) 20:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Awesome bot. Lara 21:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom motions under consideration

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) 13:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP and Bands

link. I know you're busy, but I also know you are one of the most familiar with BLP stuff .. any thoughts would be appreciated. — Ched : ? 21:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP review of Mary Lou Sapone

Can you check this for BLP? I'm thinking there's way too much innuendo, assertion, and WP:COATRACK there, despite the sourcing. I'm suspecting some things could stand to be rephrased, rather than removed, but others just plain ought to go. Jclemens (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar, yay!

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For staying calm and collected in the midst of a most nonsensical fiasco. Regardless of whether or not you emerge +sysop flag intact, your aplomb throughout this ordeal is to be admired. –Juliancolton \| ^Talk 13:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Julian. <3 Lara 17:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human sacrifice

Thank, ChildofMidnight. I sort of look like her. We have the same sized boobs. :p Haha. Lara 17:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that. We need a picture. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request for clarity

Jennavecia, apologies for this request, but I'm hoping that you could possibly clarify a conundrum that has arisen here. You see, according to posts elsewhere you have stated that you did not know that Law was The Undertow at the time you granted him rollback. Yet your statement on the Arbitration case page states "I wanted Chip to come back as the_undertow, and that's what he wanted too......AC was silent, though. So he went on as Law and I supported him in that.". If possible, would you be able to expand on the timeline of events in this area, so that we may all understand the matter further? Apologies if my request is impertinent, and thanks in advance for any response. Gazimoff 22:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I knew he had a sock, I didn't know the name of the account until December 5 following a "drunk dial" on my talk page. He had intentionally kept it from me. It wasn't until after that slip that he started telling people who he was. However, I did support him in continuing with his new account once he received no response from ArbCom. I don't think it matters at this point, though. Lara 22:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]